Wind Power

Lord Tombs: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What capacities of onshore and offshore wind power had been installed by the end of 2004; what capacities are expected to be installed in 2005; and whether their 2010 target is likely to be met.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the total installed capacity for wind power up to the year ending December 2004 is 890 megawatts, of which 766 megawatts is onshore and 124 megawatts is offshore. In 2004, 240 megawatts of new wind capacity were installed and, in 2005, we expect a further 600 megawatts of wind power capacity to be commissioned.
	To illustrate the scale of the challenge that we have, to achieve the 2010 target of 10 per cent electricity coming from renewables we need to build on average the equivalent of 1,200 megawatts of new wind capacity each year until the end of the target period. From those figures, it can be seen that capacity is now being built up at a rapidly increasing rate, but we still have a long way to go.

Lord Tombs: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that helpful reply. I believe that it is becoming clear that the 2010 target is, to say the least, fragile, but we wish him every success in the attempt to meet it.
	Is the Minister aware that there is a widespread misconception in the country to the effect that wind power is competitive with other forms of electricity generation? That is clearly incorrect, from figures that he has given me in response to previous Questions—notably, the fact that the subsidy for wind power to the Government's horizon of 2020 will be £30 billion. Can he take that misconception on board, in order to have a reasoned public debate and devise means of displacing it?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I hope I made it clear that while I believe the target to be very difficult to achieve, it is perfectly possible that we can achieve it. At the end of 2004, we estimate that 3 per cent of the UK's electricity was produced by renewables, and by the end of 2005 we estimate that the figure will be nearer 4 per cent. There is 4,000 megawatts of capacity in the pipeline, half of which has planning permission, which if it is built has the potential to produce 4 per cent of electricity. There is also the second round of the offshore wind proposals, which could produce 7 per cent of the UK's electricity supply. Half, or 3.5 per cent, could be delivered by 2010. So it is perfectly possible, though very difficult, to achieve the target.
	As for the cost of wind power, we have always made it clear that it is more expensive than the electricity being generated, which is why we have the renewables obligation. It should also be said that it is the cheapest of the renewables, and if we want to do something about climate change, this is one of the cheapest ways in which to do it.

Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, much as I wish my noble friend well in his targets, does he agree that those targets are remarkably long on optimism and remarkably short on realism, particularly when one considers that the 2010 target must then be doubled again by 2020? If we fail on either of those targets, it is imperative that we have non-carbon producing electricity generation, which requires the sustenance and maintenance of our nuclear capacity so that we are in a position to do that by 2020.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I was speaking about the targets for 2010. It is of course true that the target for 2020 would be achievable only by bringing in other sources of renewable energy. That is why between 2002 and 2008 we will be putting more than £500 million into emerging renewables and low-carbon technologies. As I have said before in this House, we have not ruled out the nuclear option, and if we are not going to be able to achieve those targets we shall consider nuclear power again.

Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, does the Minister agree with the policy of my party that local communities must have a say in where wind turbines and wind farms are placed? Given that, could he possibly comment on the fact that the Prime Minister has supported and listened to his local community in helping to stop four wind turbines being sited near Sedgefield? Given that, how is anyone ever going to meet their targets?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, obviously the question of getting planning permission for wind turbines is a considerable issue. However, it is quite right that across the country, including in the Prime Minister's constituency, there should be the ability to object to this as part of people's democratic rights. All wind turbines have to go through the planning process—that seems to me totally right. That does produce problems in getting planning permission, though it is interesting that 80 per cent of people who have a wind turbine within five kilometres of where they live are actually in favour of wind turbines.

Lord Ezra: My Lords, how do the Government propose making good any possible shortfall in the renewables target? When would they propose reaching decisions on that?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, clearly that is something that we keep under review. The two methods that we have for affecting the situation are the renewables obligation and the exemption from the climate change levy. In the period up to 2006, we shall be reviewing the renewables obligation and shall introduce any further changes to that in 2006. As I said, it is not at all clear that we cannot achieve the target but, if we cannot, there are other ways in which we can incentivise people to produce it.

Lord Marsh: My Lords, given the very long lead times in nuclear generation, can the Minister say whether the Government have any serious fall-back position before we wait until 2010 to do anything about it?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, as I said, we will constantly review this. If it becomes clear that we are not going to be able to achieve our goals, the nuclear option will still be there. As for planning for it, the major close-down of nuclear power stations begins in 2020. I think that we still have time to deal with the situation and have a proper review of it.

Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, how many planning applications have been submitted so far and how long after their submission is it taking for them to be either granted or refused?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I do not have those figures. If we have them, I will be very happy to write to the noble Lord to let him have them.

Lord Jopling: My Lords, whatever the objections may be to wind-power farms in the Sedgefield constituency, I guess they are as nothing compared with the environmental objections to a huge proposed wind farm on Shap Fell in Cumbria. It is totally unacceptable. Will the Minister encourage the Prime Minister to object to that one, too?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I think that the Prime Minister has better things to do than to go all around the country objecting to wind turbines. If we are going to talk about environmental damage, we should just ask ourselves what the environmental damage will be if we do not do something about emissions. The flood and coastal defences study which we have just done under Foresight suggests that, in extreme situations, the annual bill for flood and coastal damage would rise to £20 billion from the current figure of £1 billion. So let us be clear that no solution will be cheap. On the other side, if we get it wrong, it will be extremely expensive.

Bovine Tuberculosis

Lord Rotherwick: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they propose to change their policy regarding the culling of badgers in areas where bovine tuberculosis is rife.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, the Government would be prepared to consider culling badgers as part of an integrated bovine TB control programme, but only if the available scientific evidence supported it as a cost-effective and sustainable option. We are, of course, aware of the recently published results of badger culling research carried out in Ireland. We have referred that work to independent scientists to advise on the relevance of the findings to the disease situation in Great Britain.

Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, I am grateful for the noble Lord's Answer. He is aware of the University of Dublin's five-year tuberculosis trials in Donegal, but is he aware that those trials have conclusively reduced the incidence of TB in cattle by 96 per cent? As the Government are going to spend £2 billion on this over the next 10 years, should they wait any longer to implement such trials in this country? If so, why?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, trials are going on in this country. Although the noble Lord is correct to say that there was a success rate of over 90 per cent in one of the four areas in Ireland, there were varying rates of success in different topography and with different densities of cattle and badger populations. The full implications of the Irish studies have to be taken into account, and they will be taken into account by our independent scientists. It is instructive to note that the Irish Minister has said that the conclusions from those studies have not led her to change the overall balance of the policy they have adopted in the Irish Republic.

The Countess of Mar: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that one of the reports to which he referred me in Questions for Written Answer stated that, in 1988:
	"It is now clear that bovine TB is endemic in the British badger population and so far has been recorded in 16 of the 61 counties".
	Is he also aware that last year out of 397 new TB breakdowns in dairy and beef herds in Herefordshire, Worcestershire and Shropshire, 85 per cent have been attributed by Defra officials to wildlife origin, which means badgers?
	In view of these reports, is it not time the Minister and his colleagues grasped the nettle, as I have said before, and dealt with the problem? Over and over again, research has shown that if you reduce the number of badgers in an area, TB breakdowns in cattle will fall; if you reduce the number of cattle with TB, the TB incidence will remain the same or increase.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I have said before, and I repeat, that no one is disputing that bovine TB can be carried by badgers and can cause its spread in cattle. The question is whether that is always the main cause of the spread of TB. It is clear that cattle movements and the lack of bio-security also play a part. It is not clear that a simple culling of badgers will have the effect that the noble Countess suggests. It had a differential effect even in the Irish trials—and there are trials in the UK where the effect of a full cull has led simply to more diseased badgers moving into the area and had a negative effect on the incidence of TB. The full implications of that also have to be taken into account. I repeat that we have to take into account all the scientific evidence, including evidence on the effectiveness of a cull.

Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, has the Minister considered the pressure on dairy cows? In my area—I have lived there for almost 40 years—more pressure has been put on cattle. Does that reduce their resistance to disease? What does research indicate on that?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, if the noble Lord means that increasing production pressure in relation to dairy cattle has of itself led to greater susceptibility to disease, it is, of course, true that the more densely packed cattle are, the greater the possibility that they will contract the disease from a single source, whether that is cattle or badgers. However, I do not think that the increased productivity of dairy herds has any effect.

Baroness Mallalieu: My Lords, how long is it anticipated that these latest independent studies which have been commissioned will take? Will the Minister give some reassurance to farmers in the hotspots, particularly those in the south-west, who weekly send off reactor cattle but are told that they cannot touch a hair on the heads of badgers on their farms which they know to be infected, that the refusal so far of Defra to make a decision on this is not the result of fear of confronting badger protection groups as farmers believe?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I recognise that there is a bigger problem in the south-west than elsewhere. Those are the areas where cattle are most heavily affected and where the disease has not been contained. However, in total the number of herds affected went down last year and the amount of time during which herds are subject to restriction has also gone down. Therefore, there is some rolling back of the disease. As regards why we are not prepared to accept the simplistic view that simply culling badgers would resolve the problem, we have put in place a number of trials which will last until 2006. The results of those trials will inform policy beyond that date. It will take at most a few months for the independent scientific group to assess the relevance of the Irish trials to the British situation. That will occur well before the completion of our own trials.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, will the Minister publish the results by area of the analysis of badgers killed on the roads and the percentage and number of those badgers that tested positive for bovine TB?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, the results in those counties where that testing is carried out are passed to the independent scientific group as additional information to be considered with information relating to the culling that is being carried out within those areas. The group will take that information into account in reaching its conclusions. However, simply to publish the road accident dimension could give a misleading impression.

Digital Television: Switchover

Lord Campbell-Savours: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What is the coverage of Freeview within the United Kingdom.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, at present around 73 per cent of UK households can access digital terrestrial television services. This figure cannot be increased before switchover.
	The Government are committed to ensuring that at digital switchover everyone who can currently get the main public service broadcasting channels in analogue form (that is, BBC1 and 2, ITV, Channel 4/S4C and Five) can receive them on digital systems. The BBC and Ofcom estimate that completion of switchover can be achieved by 2012.

Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, but that means that 27 per cent of the country and, indeed, the whole population of the county of Cumbria cannot receive digital Freeview television until switchover. Has my noble friend any information that he can give us on when we can expect to receive that full range of digital services in the county of Cumbria?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, my arithmetic is the same as that of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours. No, I cannot make an announcement about the roll-out of digital switchover, although we shall be consulting on that very shortly and Ofcom will be consulting on it next month. However, my noble friend may have noticed that the draft digital replacement licences which were published by Ofcom in December include not only the final date but also the first transmitter regions to be addressed. The first one happens to be Border.

Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury: My Lords, will the Government give assurance that when digital switchover occurs, it will not lead to domination by Sky and other such services, but that the freed-up spectrum will be used to enhance the range of free-to-air programmes?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we have always given an undertaking that when digital switchover takes place it will be affordable and accessible. You have to read those two together to draw the conclusion that we are relying fundamentally on digital terrestrial television to achieve the conditions for switchover.

Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I am sure the Minister will agree that Freeview is a real success story. However, will he inform the House what the Government are doing to encourage or, indeed, put pressure upon manufacturers and retailers of television sets to ensure that we can now purchase, and are encouraged to purchase, digital televisions? If we walk into a retailer most of us will buy analogue sets. Surely it is time that people are informed and encouraged to purchase digital or analogue sets with integrated tuners.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I entirely agree that Freeview is a huge success. The relevant figure has reached almost 4 million from nothing in something like two years, which is quite an achievement. I also agree that it is very important that everyone, including manufacturers and retailers, should be making customers aware of the availability of integrated digital television sets and, of course, of set-top boxes. That is why, with the co-operation of the major retailers and manufacturers, we have launched the digital tick logo which is available in retailers with explanatory material and a stick-on for approved materials. We are also carrying out a major public relations campaign. When we make the announcement about all the details of the roll-out towards digital switchover in the course of this year, we will, of course, intensify those efforts.

Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, admirable as the success of Freeview is, is it not unfortunate and not really in the public interest that Test matches and crucial Premier League football matches should be available, and likely to remain available, only on the expensive, profit-driven Sky television channel?

Noble Lords: Hear, hear!

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I can see that the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, has touched a chord in the House with his question. I think it is well known that the Government have their disagreements with the English Cricket Board and some other sporting authorities about the way in which negotiations have been conducted with broadcasters, and sympathise with the view, which we have endeavoured to protect with the listed events procedure, that major sporting events should be available free-to-view.

Lord Swinfen: My Lords, when the digital switchover comes, will all those who have only analogue televisions be required to buy a new television? If so, what do the Government propose to do to dispose of all the excess analogue televisions that will be floating around the country?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, in reply to the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, I touched on the answer to that question. It is possible to get digital without disposing of your analogue television by buying a set-top box. So it is not necessarily the case that there will be more analogue sets being thrown out. However, the choice between integrated digital television and an analogue set with a set-top box is a matter for consumers themselves.

Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, can we be assured that at the time of switchover, Skysat will not be in a position to exploit the market?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord is referring to Freesat, which is the offer from BSkyB to provide digital satellite services for a fee of something like £150 with no obligatory subscription. That is a useful addition to the other expansion of digital, which is being carried out both on terrestrial television and by cable.

Energy Efficiency: Households

Lord Ezra: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will introduce fiscal incentives for domestic householders to improve the energy efficiency of their homes.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the Government have introduced a number of measures to improve household energy efficiency, including reduced VAT rates for professionally-installed energy saving materials and the landlords' energy saving allowance. Budget 2004 also announced the Government's intention to consider a green landlords scheme. The Government continue to explore options for using other cost-effective fiscal measures to improve household energy efficiency, taking account of economic, social and environmental objectives. Any decisions on the further use of fiscal instruments to incentivise household energy efficiency will be made by the Chancellor within the Budget timetable.

Lord Ezra: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that generally encouraging Answer. Does he recall that last year the Government reduced the carbon emissions objective in the domestic sector from 5 million tonnes per annum by 2010 to 4.2 million tonnes due to the slower than expected uptake of insulation measures? Is it not a fact that in the private domestic sector, energy efficiency is generally lower than in the social sector, as revealed by successive House Condition Surveys? Should the Government be looking even more seriously at providing incentives in the private domestic sector, particularly by means of the measures indicated in the Question?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the noble Lord is right that the greater problem lies in the private-owned domestic sector, which is why we are considering measures that will be appropriate to that sector to provide the incentives for energy saving. He will recognise that one crucial area, which we are watching carefully, requires field trials to be completed. As the actual product for insulation in homes cannot be ready until later this year, we have time to evaluate those field trials and work out how we incentivise people to adopt these measures. I agree with the noble Lord that we have a considerable way to go to hit the targets that we have set for 2010, and it will require us to deploy a range of measures to give incentives to the market.

Lord Lawson of Blaby: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there is no shortage of energy? If there was a scarcity, the market and the price mechanism would reflect that perfectly adequately. Why is taxpayers' money being used to subsidise energy, when there is no more case for subsidising the efficient use of energy than, say, the efficient use of foodstuffs, or anything else?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, we are all concerned about the question of energy consumption, and we all recognise that there are substantial changes in the nature of our energy supply in the United Kingdom, as has been attested in many debates in this House on energy provision. We are also concerned with reducing waste. In a world in which many areas are going energy-short and are obliged to exploit forms of carbon-based energy that increase greenhouse gases, it behoves us all to follow a strategy that reduces our dependence on such developments.

Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, I agree wholeheartedly with what the Minister said, and I disagree with my noble friend Lord Lawson. Is it not a fact, as the Minister said, that, since carbon-produced electricity is one of the major sources of increases in carbon dioxide emissions, all of us are becoming increasingly worried about the speed at which this is happening? One's heart sinks when one hears that the Government are considering further measures and a decision will eventually be taken by the Chancellor. Why do the Government not get on with it, as the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, said, and introduce something positive quickly? For example, a fiscal incentive for those who install double-glazing would quickly make houses much more energy efficient.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, there is an incentive to householders to install double-glazing, and we have a range of measures to give support to energy conservation in those terms. It is not fair to suggest that one should regret that a great deal of these measures lie with the Treasury, which is proactive and creative on this. I apologise if I produced dissention on the Benches opposite about these strategies; I was hoping to engender healthy debate.

Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House whether the vast number of new houses that the Deputy Prime Minister has indicated that he wishes to build for about £60,000 each will contain all of these energy-efficient measures?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, it is certainly our intention to build to a high standard. We are encouraging new build, and the incentives are already in place for cavity walls and improved insulation for lofts and roofs. In those areas, we are already giving incentives to houses that need conversion. Of course, we intend that the new houses that we expect to build under the ambitious plans of my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister will meet these high standards.

Business of the House: Debates this Day

Lord Grocott: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Leader of the House, I beg to move the Motion standing in her name on the Order Paper.
	As your Lordships will know, the normal time for party-chosen debates on Wednesday is six hours, and it would be normal in these circumstances to have two three-hour debates. However, because of the large number of noble Lords who have put down their names to speak, the usual channels have agreed to take three and a half hours for the second debate, which reflects the enormous popularity of these two debates chosen by the Labour Party. Together with the Statement that is coming up, that will take us past the normal finish time on a Wednesday, which is 10 o'clock, but it will not take us too far past that time.
	On behalf of the Whips, I plead with the House that simple arithmetic tells you that when you have a large number of people speaking in a time-limited debate, if every single contributor goes over their allotted time by a mere 30 seconds, the amount left at the end is not much. That is within the power of the House, and it would ensure that there is no Minister winding up at the end if everyone goes a minute over, about which there may be mixed feelings. These are fixed, time-limited debates. That means that in the debate where we have five minutes each, as soon as the six goes up, it is time to finish—

Noble Lords: Five!

Lord Grocott: My Lords, I beg noble Lords' pardon—I am making the mistake that I am accusing everyone else of making. As soon as the five goes up, it is time to finish. Please assist us all in that respect.
	Moved, That the debate on the Motion in the name of the Baroness Whitaker set down for today shall be limited to three hours and that in the name of the Lord Hunt of Kings Heath to three and a half hours.—(Lord Grocott.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001: Part 4 Powers

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made earlier today in another place by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. The Statement is as follows:
	"With permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to make a Statement about the future of the powers in Part 4 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 (the ATCS Act).
	"These matters have of course received the closest attention in this House and in another place through the work of the Intelligence and Security Committee, the Home Affairs Committee and the Joint Committee on Human Rights, to all of which I pay respect. I appreciate, too, the valuable work carried out by a committee of Privy Counsellors under the chairmanship of the right honourable Lord Newton of Braintree, and of course we have the regular advice of Lord Carlile of Berriew on the operation of both the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 Part 4 powers and the Terrorism Act 2000. This work shows the comprehensive scrutiny which both Houses give to these difficult issues. Of course, what I am saying today follows on from the consultation paper which my predecessor published in February last year and which has informed the conclusions I am presenting today.
	"As the House well knows, the Part 4 powers are immigration powers. They enable me to certify and detain, pending deportation, suspected international terrorists who, because of our international commitments, we cannot remove.
	"Despite concerns when we legislated for Part 4, the powers have been used very sparingly with only 17 people certified since the powers were introduced. Those currently certified and detained were certified as being suspected international terrorists on the basis of a careful Security Service assessment of the significant threat they pose, and that judgment has been upheld regularly by the Special Immigration Appeals Commission.
	"On 16 December last year, the House of Lords Judicial Committee handed down its judgment on the compatibility of the Part 4 powers with the ECHR. It quashed the Human Rights 1998 (Designated Derogation) Order 2001 and declared Section 23 of the ATCS Act incompatible with Article 5 (the right to liberty) and Article 14 (freedom from discrimination) of the ECHR.
	"It did so because it considered that the Part 4 powers were discriminatory in that they applied only to foreign nationals and that, as a response to the threat we faced from terrorism, they were not proportionate.
	"It is true that the Part 4 powers apply only to foreign nationals. The reason for this is that, when we looked at the very real threat we faced from international terrorism in the immediate aftermath of the terrible events of 11 September, we were able to identify a small number of foreign nationals resident here who posed a particular danger to us. Prosecution for their activities was not possible for evidential reasons, although two of those certified and detained under the Part 4 powers have since been convicted of criminal offences, and there was no realistic prospect of deporting them.
	"The Part 4 powers were the means of containing their activities where prosecution was not possible. I can tell the House that the Government believe that the powers have played an essential part in addressing the current public emergency because they have been successful in containing the threat posed by those certified and detained under them.
	"They have, moreover, had another effect. It is clear from the intelligence reports that I have seen that the existence, and use, of these powers has helped to make the United Kingdom a far more hostile environment for international terrorists to operate in, with the result that some have been deterred from coming here and others have left entirely to avoid being certified and detained. I am pleased about that. The United Kingdom must never be regarded as a soft touch or a safe haven for terrorists.
	"The Government believed that the Part 4 powers were justified because: the threat appeared to come predominantly, albeit not exclusively, from foreign nationals; foreign nationals do not have the same right to be here as British nationals; and, against the background of the strong condemnation of terrorism contained in UN Security Council Resolution 1373, it was necessary to take positive action against peripatetic terrorists who happened to be living here.
	"That said, however, I accept the Law Lords' declaration of incompatibility with the ECHR of Section 23 of the ATCS Act. I accept, too, the Lords' judgment that new legislative measures must apply equally to nationals as well as non-nationals. But we still need to decide how to deal with the threat presented by terrorists without the assistance of the Part 4 powers.
	"My starting point is the threat which we face. This is of course a heavy responsibility for all concerned and one which has the highest priority of all. That is why I have to take account of events happening around the world and, in particular, here at home. I have had frequent discussions with the Director-General of the Security Service and the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police since my appointment. I am left in absolutely no doubt that nothing has happened recently which diminishes the threat or calls into question the state of public emergency threatening the life of the nation.
	"The ATCS Act was enacted because there was an unprecedented terrorist threat to the United Kingdom, which was assessed to emanate from Al'Qaeda and those individuals and groups within the loosely co-ordinated series of overlapping terrorist networks linked to it. Our understanding of the threat has advanced since then, both from an increasing intelligence base and through the investigation of both successful and thwarted attacks. It is clear that some British nationals are now playing a more significant role in these threats. At the same time, networks, consisting of foreign nationals with international links, remain.
	"Within the past year, for example, we have seen the multiple attacks in Spain in March 2004, attacks at Al Khubar in Saudi Arabia in May, the attack on the Australian Embassy in Jakarta, Indonesia in September, an attack on an Israeli-owned hotel in Egypt in October and the attack on the US consulate in Jeddah in Saudi Arabia in December 2004.
	"In these circumstances, I repeat, my judgment is that there remains a public emergency threatening the life of the nation. The absence of the Part 4 powers would present us with real difficulties, and so I now set out the ways in which we can meet this threat.
	"The Government believe that the answer lies in a twin-track approach: specifically, deportation with assurances for foreign nationals who we can and should deport; and a new mechanism—control orders—for containing and disrupting those who we cannot prosecute or deport.
	"As the House knows, we have been trying for some time now to address the problems posed by individuals whose deportation could fall foul of our international obligations by seeking Memoranda of Understanding (MoUs) with their countries of origin. We are currently focusing our attention on certain key Middle Eastern and North African countries. I am determined to progress this with energy. My right honourable and noble friend Lady Symons of Vernham Dean visited the region last week and she had positive discussions with a number of countries on which we are now seeking to build.
	"I want to make it clear that prosecution is, and will remain, our preferred way forward when dealing with all terrorists, and all agencies do operate, and will continue to operate, on this basis. But all of us need to recognise that it is not always possible to bring charges, given the need to protect highly sensitive sources and techniques.
	"There is a widespread misconception that if only we could adduce intercept as evidence we should be able to prosecute those detained. However, the review of intercept as evidence found no evidence to support this and I have consequently made a Written Statement today stating that the Government do not intend to change the existing arrangements.
	"Intercept provides only part of the intelligence against individuals, sometimes a small part. It does not stand alone. Some of the material we have in these cases is inadmissible, and other material while technically admissible could not be adduced without compromising national security, damaging relationships with foreign powers or intelligence agencies, or putting the lives of sources at risk.
	"So there are cases where we remain unable to prosecute. However, that does not mean that we should do nothing to forestall or prevent suspected terrorists planning, assisting or otherwise supporting those willing to carry out attacks.
	"The Government have therefore decided to replace the Part 4 powers with a new system of control orders. We intend that such orders should be capable of general application to any suspected terrorist irrespective of nationality or, for most of the controls, the nature of the terrorist activity (international or domestic) and enable us to impose conditions constraining the ability of those subject to the orders to engage in terrorist-related activities.
	"Control orders would be used only in serious cases. The controls imposed would be proportionate to the threat each individual posed. Such orders would be preventive—designed to disrupt those seeking to carry out attacks, et cetera, whether here or elsewhere, or who are planning or otherwise supporting such activities. They would be designed directly to address two of the Law Lords' concerns— on discrimination and proportionality.
	"The key features of the scheme will be: that the Secretary of State would consider whether, on the basis of an intelligence assessment provided by the Security Service, there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that an individual is or has been concerned with terrorism; and, if the answer to this is yes, and he or she considers it necessary for the purposes of protecting the public from terrorist-related activities, he or she would impose controls on that individual. There would be a range of controls restricting movement and association or other communication with named individuals; the imposition of curfews and/or tagging; other restrictions on access to telecommunications, the Internet and other technology. At the top end, control orders would include a requirement to remain at their premises; the controls to be imposed under the new scheme will not include detention in prison although I intend that breach of a control order should be a criminal offence, triable in the usual way through the criminal courts and punishable by imprisonment; there will be independent judicial scrutiny involving the hearing of evidence in open and closed session, against the imposition of the order or any subsequent variation of its provisions; a mechanism for reviewing and modifying conditions as circumstances warrant subject again to independent judicial scrutiny; other safeguards will include the Secretary of State reporting regularly to Parliament on the number of orders made et cetera; independent annual review of the powers, as now with the Part 4 powers; and annual renewal of the powers. I am considering separately what role the ISC might play here.
	"The Government, of course, intend to ensure that any future powers we take in legislation are wholly compatible with the provisions of the ECHR, if necessary employing a new derogation to that effect.
	"I have sought advice from the Director-General of the Security Service and the Metropolitan Police Commissioner about the powers we need to deal effectively with the public emergency threatening the life of the nation, and to deal with British and Foreign nationals whom we have grounds to believe are engaged in terrorism. On the basis of their advice, my judgment is that the range of powers I have outlined above, including a criminal sanction for breach, will be essential if we are to contain the threat which those who may be made subject to control orders pose to public safety.
	"I told the House on 16 December that I intended to renew the Part 4 powers as necessary. However, my desire is to bring forward a Bill to give effect to control orders as soon as practicable. I can see advantages if it were possible to enact the Bill to a timescale which makes renewal unnecessary. Should that not be possible, I will seek to renew the Part 4 powers for the limited time necessary to put the new arrangements in place. I will need to lay the renewal order in draft and will do so tomorrow.
	"For this reason I will not be revoking the certificates on the current detainees between now and when the new legislation is in place, unless the threat they pose changes and they no longer meet the criteria for certification.
	"Those currently certified and detained were certified as being suspected international terrorists on the basis of a careful Security Service assessment of the significant threat they pose, and that judgment has been upheld by the Special Immigration Appeals Commission.
	"We believe that those detained under the Part 4 powers continue to pose a threat to national security and that we should seek to ensure that we take all the necessary steps to address that threat.
	"These are all difficult issues with no easy answers. A careful balance has to be struck between the rights of individuals and the protection of society against threats from organisations which seek to destroy central attributes of our society, such as freedom of belief, speech and association, freedom of expression and even our central democracy. All parts of our society—Parliament, the legal system, the media—need an open debate about this so that we understand the complexities of the security situation we face. I will shortly be bringing forward detailed proposals about the best way to conduct this debate.
	"My principal responsibility as Home Secretary is to preserve our democracy against those who seek to destroy it through terrorist attacks. The threat is real and I believe that the steps I am announcing today will enable us more effectively to meet that threat.
	"I am, of course, very well aware that the proposals I am making today represent a very substantial increase in the executive powers of the state in relation to British citizens who we fear are preparing terrorist activities and against whom we cannot proceed in open court.
	"This will be contentious but I believe the need for us to protect ourselves against the threat justifies the changes I propose. I commend this Statement to the House".
	My Lords, that concludes the statement.

Lord Henley: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement on the replacement of the Part 4 powers in the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act with a new scheme of control orders, on the Belmarsh detainees and on the recent judgment of the Judicial Committee of this House.
	While I agree with parts of the Statement, particularly where the Home Secretary made it quite clear that,
	"these are all difficult issues with no easy answers",
	and while I agree that one of his principal responsibilities must be,
	"to preserve our democracy against those who seek to destroy it through terrorist attacks",
	it cannot be much fun to have been appointed Home Secretary on the day when the Judicial Committee of this House overturned one of his schemes by a majority of eight to one.
	We understand the difficulty of the Home Secretary's position. As he made clear in the Statement, he has a very real duty to ensure the protection of the people of this country from terrorism and all the associated evils. He must do that while preserving the balance to which he referred in the Statement of keeping within the law and resisting the temptation to create something that approaches a police state.
	We on these Benches certainly understand the difficulty of his position. Nevertheless, there are a number of questions that I wish to put to the Minister on the Statement that she has just repeated, and I hope that she will be able to answer them. I shall also want to go on to the Written Statement, also made by the Home Secretary, on phone tapping which, I understand, came out today but presumably it will be in tomorrow's Hansard. We find it rather odd that the Home Secretary should issue that Statement at the same time as this oral Statement, when it seems that the two could have been put together. But perhaps the Minister can come to that later when she deals with my questions.
	My first point concerns the discussions that the Home Secretary and, presumably, the Foreign Office—because the Minister mentioned the noble Baroness, Lady Symons—are having with a number of countries which were described as,
	"certain key Middle Eastern and North African countries".
	I do not know whether at this stage she can say with which countries the Foreign Office and, presumably, the Home Office are having discussions. How many countries are involved? What is the current state of those discussions? I presume that she would want to assure the House that, whatever assurances she obtains from those countries, one will be that anyone being sent back to those countries goes back with a guarantee that there will be no use of capital punishment and no use of torture or anything else that is unacceptable in this country.
	Secondly, I come to the whole question about intercept being used as evidence—or phone tapping, as some of us would refer to it. In the Statement the Minister repeated the remarks of the Home Secretary. He said:
	"However, the review of intercept as evidence found no evidence to support this and I have consequently made a Written Statement today stating that the Government do not intend to change the existing arrangements".
	That might be so. But in the Written Statement issued by the Home Secretary today, he refers to some of the evidence produced in the review and states that,
	"evidential use of intercept would be likely to help . . . [convict] some serious criminals".
	I appreciate that this is a matter of balance. However, I wonder whether the noble Baroness could say a little more about the Government's current thinking about that and whether the issue might be reviewed, because the two Statements—the oral and the Written Statement—seem to have contradictory parts.
	Thirdly, I move to the new control orders that the Government propose to use to replace Part 4, which the Judicial Committee of this House found to be in breach of our human rights obligations—first, because, as I understand it, they were considered to be discriminate—that is to say, they were used only against those who are not United Kingdom citizens—and, secondly, because they were disproportionate. When the courts make a decision of that sort and the Home Office's initial reaction is to say, "Well, if they are discriminatory let's bring everyone else into it", one has some doubt whether that is the right approach. But, no doubt, the Government will set that out in due course and will also explain whether this possibly creates a new discrimination; in that now you have some who will be dealt with under new control orders who can then be deported and some who can be dealt with by the new control orders but who cannot be deported because they are United Kingdom citizens. No doubt the Home Office and the Home Secretary will deal with that in due course.
	I have a number of questions about these new control orders. Obviously, before we on these Benches give any assurance of co-operation with whatever the Government want to do, we would want to see everything that the noble Baroness and the Home Secretary have said fleshed out in some considerable detail. We would want to be assured that whatever is being proposed will not be found by the Judicial Committee to be wholly disproportionate and the wrong way of going ahead.
	So, first, can I have an assurance from the Government that what is proposed will not be disproportionate? Secondly, can the Minister tell us when and how we will see the details of what is proposed? What legislation precisely will be needed? What will be the timescale of that legislation? Will it be primary legislation—for example, will it have to go through both Houses in the usual way, and so on? Will she offer some sort of guarantee that noble Lords on these Benches, and, no doubt on the Liberal Democrat Benches, will be able to see whatever is proposed in good time and to see what safeguards the Government propose to include in the new control orders?
	My next question is: exactly what—and here I am very confused—new criminal offences are proposed? We are told in the Statement that it will be a criminal offence to breach these new control orders, but the control orders themselves, it is implied, will not be a criminal offence. They seem to be something approaching anti-social behaviour orders. Again, I am confused. I think it is beholden on the Minister to let us know exactly what is proposed and what new criminal offences are proposed, other than the fact that a breach of one of these orders will be a criminal offence.
	The last point I should like to make on these matters is that it seems that the Government propose to bring forward new legislation to introduce these new control orders. However much we on these Benches, our colleagues on the Liberal Democrat Benches or whoever, wish to co-operate with the Government and assist them, this will be difficult legislation that will take a considerable amount of time; certainly to take through this House. How long it takes to get through another place is another matter, but then they have their own ways of dealing with these things. But it will take time in this House. Therefore, it is necessary for the Minister to address the question of what other legislation might have to be dropped, in what is a very busy Session, to enable this legislation to go through.
	It might be that the Minister does not feel able to answer the question at this stage, but, as one who was connected in the past with the business management in this House, I should be grateful if she would write to me and set out what the Government intend to do, how they intend to find time for this legislation and what other legislation they intend to drop.
	Having said that, we on these Benches very much accept the difficult position the Home Secretary is in. Without obviously in anyway wishing to give a blank cheque to the Government, we accept that these are difficult issues with no easy answers, and, where appropriate, we shall offer our support; but where it is not appropriate, we will want to probe exactly what the Government are doing and seek the appropriate answers from them.

Lord Dholakia: My Lords, we take no pleasure in saying that during the passage of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, we expressed serious concerns about Part 4. But this is obviously not the time for recrimination. Nor do we wish to open up the whole debate about civil liberties of individuals against the security of our country. That is because we are in a fortunate position that the valuable work undertaken by various committees has given the most detailed and closest attention to the issues involved.
	The Law Lords have ultimately determined that the Part 4 powers are discriminatory and not proportionate. Let me first of all thank the Minister for repeating the Statement in your Lordships' House and thank the Home Secretary for his advance notice of the Statement and, in particular, for the constructive approach he has taken on this particular issue. For three years the Government appeared to be dragging their feet. Now we have the sense that the Home Secretary is genuine about finding a way forward.
	That is welcome and has our support. On the day that we see the return of four detainees from Guantanamo, this is indeed good news. Let me promise the Minister that we will give serious consideration to the control orders that the Home Secretary is suggesting, but can she confirm that the standard of burden of proof will be high before an order is made? Are the control orders the process of civil courts, which use the balance of probability, or are they part of criminal proceedings requiring proof which is beyond reasonable doubt? The idea of holding individuals in house detention is another solution that is worth examination, but is the Minister considering ways in which that could be done without requiring derogation from our human rights commitments?
	I am disappointed that the Minister has ruled out the use of intercept communication in obtaining trials. Although they may not help with putting the current detainees on trial, does the Minister acknowledge that in future cases, information gained from tapping could be relevant and could be used? I simply ask the Minister to keep the door open.
	We gather that there is a consensus of opinion between intelligence services and the police that such information could be of benefit in pursuing cases against individuals, yet there is confusion in government circles on the issue and an explanation from the Minister would be very helpful. There is also some confusion of interpretation that my party was against the use of such information. That has not been the case.
	I remain concerned at the idea of returning the detainees to host countries, although that is better than a third country. Does the Minister acknowledge that any agreement to do that would require very strong reassurances on human rights from those countries and that any arrangement could be challenged by the detainees if they felt it was unsafe? There is provision for making in-country information available to immigration adjudicators. We should ensure that organisations such as Amnesty International and the United Nations are involved in updating such information.
	However, despite all the assurances given, three questions remain. Can we trust some of the host countries whose human rights record is questionable? Would we have categorical assurances from those countries that the detainees would not be harmed? Thirdly, would the detainees' wishes on whether they remained here or were sent back to the country of origin be taken into account?
	Finally, we will be constructive about helping to speed up legislation on this issue, as we are aware that the March deadline for renewing the derogation is looming. In doing so our priority will be to balance the security of our country with the need to maintain strong principles of justice. I hope that on this, we can now find cross-party agreement.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for the constructive and helpful way in which they have responded to the Statement and in particular for the compliments that have been paid to my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. I think that I will be able to give noble Lords some assurances on a number of the matters raised. The noble Lord, Lord Henley, raised the issue of the countries with which we have had conversations about returns. As the Home Secretary said in his Statement, my noble friend Lady Symons of Vernham Dean had conversations with a number of countries last week. We have discussed with those countries their assurances in relation to our and their international obligations and Article 3. It is good that we have had positive discussions and they will continue to, we hope, helpful conclusions.
	Of the other issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Henley, I shall turn first to intercept. My right honourable friend's Written Statement, repeated by me, makes clear that the review found that interceptor product might secure a modest increase in the number of convictions of level 1 and 2 serious criminals, but not of the most serious; and that it would be unlikely to assist in prosecuting terrorist targets and would not have made a critical difference to the prospect of prosecuting people detained under the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act Part 4 powers. Therefore, there is no inconsistency. However, I tell both noble Lords that of course these matters will be kept under review, as we have reviewed that from time to time, to see whether the position has changed.
	Many of the details about the timescale are difficult to answer at this precise moment. We will put a great deal of energy into making sure that the legislation appears as rapidly as possible. Noble Lords will know that we have a very limited time because of the date on which the Part 4 orders will expire, so it is of the utmost importance that we put a great deal of energy into that. It will be primary legislation. It will come before both Houses. Noble Lords will have an opportunity to scrutinise the detail. I cannot today give your Lordships full details of what will be in it, but I hope that noble Lords have found that we have tried to extend the usual courtesies in regard to the legislation. We will certainly use our best endeavours to ensure that noble Lords who will be interested in the matter get access to that information as soon as reasonably practicable.
	The control orders will be civil orders and a breach of those orders will be criminal. The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, raised the issue of the standard of proof. He will know that in considering whether to certify an individual under the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act Part 4 powers, the Home Secretary must reasonably believe that the person's presence in the United Kingdom is a threat to national security and reasonably suspect that the person is an international terrorist. A very strict standard has been adopted in applying that test. I hope that noble Lords will be reassured by the very small number of individuals who have been subject to those powers. We will look with great care to ensure that the standard is appropriate.
	The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, asked me a number of questions about intercept information. I hope that I have covered those in my response to the noble Lord, Lord Henley.

Lord Lloyd of Berwick: My Lords, I am bound to say that I find the Statement very depressing. Indeed, I find the response of the opposition parties somewhat depressing as well. Does the Minister accept that the proposed control orders will inevitably involve a deprivation of liberty contrary to Article 5 of the European convention—and, indeed, probably of Article 11, as that also involves the deprivation of the right to association? Does that not inevitably mean that there will have to be another derogation from the convention by this country to replace the order of derogation so recently quashed by this House in another capacity?
	Would it not be better for the Government to come clean straight away, rather than using the pious words included in the Statement, where they say that they,
	"intend to ensure that any future powers we take in legislation are wholly compatible with the provisions of the ECHR"?
	How could they be? I hope that the Minister will deal with that point in her reply, and say why we are the only country that has hitherto found it necessary to derogate from the convention and apparently intends to do so yet again.
	The effect of the legislation would seem to be that we are simply extending deprivation of liberty to a wider number of people than before. How can that be regarded as a satisfactory solution to what I accept, and everyone accepts, is an extremely difficult problem? Would it not be far better to change the law so that those who are currently detained—and those who are not currently detained but are suspected of terrorism or terrorist intentions—are prosecuted in accordance with the ordinary law?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, of course I understand the import of what the noble and learned Lord says. However, I hope that it was made plain in the Statement that our primary responsibility must be the safety and security of this country. We will look with a great deal of care at the nature and the extent of the control orders. I am not in a position to help your Lordships with the precise detail, and we know that the devil is always in the detail. We will strive to produce a framework that is consistent with the ECHR. However, in the Statement, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary also made it plain that, in the end, he must make sure that the security of this country comes first. That heavy responsibility rests on his shoulders.

Baroness Hayman: My Lords, as I am the only member of the Privy Council review committee who is able to be here, I thank my noble friend for her kind words about its contribution. Perhaps I ought also to thank the Judicial Committee of this House for making some of our suggestions rather more palatable to the Home Office than they were at the initial stages.
	Will my noble friend accept that, in trying to strike this extremely difficult balance, it is unlikely that a single measure will solve the problem? Many of us would accept that the reason for extending whatever measures are in place—to British nationals as well as to non-UK citizens—is one not of theoretical anti-discrimination, but of fulfilling what she described as the prime responsibility of the Home Secretary and the Government to protect citizens. The measure should be of the threat, not of the nationality or link to a particular terrorist organisation of the person posing that threat.
	Is my noble friend aware, however, that there will be great concerns if the measures around control orders involve another derogation? If at all possible, could we not find a range of measures beyond some forms of control that we recommended? In that respect, I want to ask her about all the other recommendations made as alternatives to detention under Part 4, particularly the measures about improving the possibility of prosecutions being undertaken successfully and how the Government intend to address those issues apart from the simple replacement of Part 4.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I wholeheartedly agree with my noble friend that there is no single golden bullet in relation to the issue, and that we will need a range of measures. However, it is right to emphasise what was said in the Statement—that prosecution must always be, where possible, the preferred option. We are looking at other solutions where prosecution is not possible, for particularly delicate and difficult reasons, but we hope that they will be rare cases indeed. I agree with her on the importance of looking at the threat posed by the individual concerned. We will continue to look at the range of measures discussed, to try to put forward the most effective package to keep this country safe.

The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, we found that internment without trial did not work during the IRA Troubles—which, let us remember, were partially financed from the United States. Large numbers of bombs went off here in London and in other parts of the United Kingdom. We found that internment without trial was not only counterproductive, but against the law and every tradition with which we should be proud to associate ourselves, so why are we taking this step? How many other common-law countries—Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the United States—have felt the necessity to introduce internment without trial?
	Would the noble Baroness like to comment on the fact that asking the Egyptians to say that they will not torture people is exactly the same as asking someone whether they have stopped beating their wife yet? If they say yes they admit to doing it, and if they say no they are in a hot pickle. Whatever you ask the Egyptians or whoever it may be in north Africa, they will be forced to admit to torture so, as we have already seen in published data, that will not work either. It is a sad day when this country introduces internment without trial for its own subjects. It is an appalling issue.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I acknowledge the passion with which the noble Earl expresses his views. However, we are looking very carefully at what proportionate response we can make to these matters. We will look at the detail, and your Lordships will be able to do so too.
	In relation to the countries with which we are having discussions, I respectfully suggest to the noble Earl that his caricature is unfair. We have had the privilege to negotiate in the past with a number of countries and have generally found that, when we have managed to come to an agreement, our partners have honoured those agreements. We hope that any future agreement made with an international partner would be similarly honoured.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, given that detention of suspects will not be allowed under the new legislation to replace Part 4, will the Government oppose applications for bail from current detainees, subject of course to appropriate conditions being imposed on that bail? If so, how would they justify that opposition?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, it would be wholly inappropriate for me to talk about specific cases. The House will know that, under the provisions of SIAC now and for the whole time that they have been in place, it is and has always been open to those detained to apply for bail. When such applications are made, the Government have, in accordance with our duty, considered the nature of the threat and the application and have responded accordingly. We will continue to do so in the event of any application being made.

Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that great satisfaction will have been felt among those who have experienced and know about interception from the Statement that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary will not change its use in courts? Does my noble friend agree that interception is a wide, complex and sensitive matter—it does not mean only phone tapping, as the noble Lord, Lord Henley, seems to believe—and that putting the product of any interception operation into the public domain inevitably reveals techniques and sources that have to be protected?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I hear what my noble friend says, particularly given her wisdom and experience of such matters. I thank her for her support. We understand the wide complexity of intercept material. Those who seek to limit it simply to phone tapping indeed misunderstand it.

Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws: My Lords, I too have a mixture of responses to the Statement. I am grateful that the Home Secretary has acknowledged the judgment of our senior court. It would have been awful had we suddenly seen some kind of constitutional crisis develop, so I am content that we have had that more positive response.
	However, I share some concerns that have been expressed. We have just had a truly shameful episode in our history of unlimited detention of persons without trial. It was an affront to everything for which Britain stands in the world. It undermined our moral authority throughout the world, and gave encouragement to those with no respect for human rights. So I was hoping that the Home Secretary would accept some of the other suggestions that have been made by human rights organisations. I sat on a commission that was set up by the International Bar Association. Can the Minister say whether the Home Secretary considered its recommendations? It found that other European countries, including Sweden and Germany, have the same problem as we have. In those countries the activities of a number of persons suspected of engagement in or support for terrorism have been kept under very heavy surveillance and those activities have been emasculated. Has that been considered, because that would not involve derogation from the principles of the European Convention on Human Rights?
	I am also concerned to hear the noble Baroness say that the standard of proof would be high. She mentioned that the current basis of certification is reasonable belief. That is lower than the civil standard of proof, never mind the criminal standard of proof, and has been criticised by members of the judiciary. So that is not a strict standard and would certainly not satisfy many members of human rights organisations. There should be a raising of the standard of proof. Might we not also consider alternatives to house arrest and could not bail be considered? There are other ways of dealing with such problems.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for her contribution. I hope that I made clear that the Government were looking at the detail. We were considering whether the scheme that we put in place would need derogation or not and that there had not been a decision in relation to that, because we have not yet set out the specific detail in relation to it. Regarding the standard of proof, we will seek to put in place the appropriate test that will be applied in relation to obtaining the control order. Of course we have looked at other suggestions and will continue to look at suggestions that may better fit the position in which we now find ourselves. But I hope that my noble friend will accept that in making those difficult decisions, the Government have continued to strike a balance which is fair and proportionate in relation to the threat with which we are now faced.

Lord Glentoran: My Lords, as a non-lawyer among many erudite lawyers, perhaps I may ask question for clarification. Does this packet of measures seek to maintain the distinction between international terrorism and national terrorism, such as that pursued by the IRA and the UDA? Do the Government intend that the penalties for international terrorism will continue to be more severe than those applying to national terrorism?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I hope I have made clear that we have had to take into account the consequences of the decision made by the Judicial Committee of this House in relation to the discriminatory nature of the distinction we made between foreign nationals and citizens of our country. The new provisions would apply to terrorists generally. We have not yet decided on the nature of the penalties, but those details will be in any proposed legislation that comes before this House and another place.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I was member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights which scrutinised this legislation twice—in fact more than that. Although I am no longer a member of the committee, I can say that it will very much welcome the Statement made in the other place, and repeated by the noble Baroness, as a vindication of the way in which the Human Rights Act has worked in this case.
	First, it has worked because the Law Lords have given a judgment which is, I am sure, admired across the democratic world and which I hope will serve as some persuasive influence to colleagues on the American Supreme Court, when they consider a similar matter. Secondly, it has worked because the Home Secretary, instead of not obeying the ruling of the House of Lords, has wisely decided to do his best to comply with the judgments. That will be welcome to anyone who is concerned about human rights. Thirdly, the new Home Secretary, unlike his predecessor, has wisely looked at the Newton committee's recommendations and, instead of ruling them out, as happened in the discussion paper on the previous occasion, he has taken account of them. That is also welcome.
	Like others, I respectfully disagree with the judgment about the use of telephone taps and intercept material. I cannot understand why that should be ruled out. Only Ireland and the UK do so. The Human Rights Committee took evidence from a senior French judge, who convinced us that one of the reasons we could not prosecute suspected terrorists was partly due to the exclusionary rule, which seemed to us not to be sensible.
	I should like to ask the noble Baroness one question. What will be the position of the United Kingdom when the Belmarsh detainees go to the European Court of Human Rights, as they undoubtedly will, arguing that the declaration of incompatibility and the Minister's Statement do not give them any effective remedy? Do the Government have any idea in their current planning to avoid humiliation before the European Court of Human Rights? Are they considering any measures that will seek to provide a remedy to the Belmarsh detainees for their detention, which is, effectively, in breach of Article 5?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the noble Lord knows perfectly well that it would be quite inappropriate for me specifically to comment about that case. Of course the Government are looking at their duty. I thank the noble Lord for the comments he made about the nature of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary's Statement. These are issues that will continue to provide the Government with anxious consideration.

The Lord Bishop of Chester: My Lords, I join others in recognising how difficult it is, in a democracy, for the Government to shape anti-terrorism measures. The responses to the two major points made by the Law Lords seem to extend to all our citizens a watered down version of the powers to detain people without trial. This is a serious matter. It may not quite be the internment to which the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, referred, but it is in that territory, especially if the orders strongly controlled someone in their own home. Issues would then arise about the right to work, how they will be sustained and other such questions.
	Is the extension of these powers, which were not thought necessary when the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act itself was passed, simply to address the issue of discrimination, or do the Government anticipate that our citizens will be detained without trial in their own homes, which would be a new development? Regarding the control orders, can the Minister assure us that the lightest possible touch will be used, with all the advantages of modern technology, to keep any constraint on the liberties of folk to an absolute minimum?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, certainly, in the operation of the control orders, there could be a very wide spectrum of intervention—from those who may need to report at certain times, to those who need to be tagged. There can be a combination of measures. Regarding the right reverend Prelate's other comments, the Government have tried to keep those matters very much in balance.

Business

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, perhaps I may remind the House of a point made by the Government Chief Whip that when six minutes is indicated on the clock, Members should have completed their six minutes. The instant—the second—that "6" appears on the clock should be the end of the six minutes.

Lord Ackner: My Lords, why do we not alter the clock? We have this problem every time. Why do we not start with "1" on the clock and then there would not be part of the problem to which the noble Baroness drew attention?

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I agree completely with the noble and learned Lord. He has been here longer than I and he knows that changing things in the House of Lords takes time.

Poverty in Developing Countries

Baroness Whitaker: rose to call attention to Her Majesty's Government's policies to reduce poverty in developing countries; and to move for Papers.
	My Lords, any debate on this subject must be coloured by the disaster of the tsunami, but I would like to set the situation of the urgent catastrophe in the context of the long-term needs of development. DfID's exemplary response is now turning towards helping rebuilding on the Indian Ocean shores more sustainably and strengthening their infrastructure against calamity.
	Many departments of state have an influence on poverty in developing countries. Those of us who think of the world as increasingly interdependent—"one moral universe", to quote my right honourable friend the Chancellor—applaud the policy of the Department of Trade and Industry and the Foreign Office to push for trade justice and market access for the exports of developing countries, and look to that of the Ministry of Defence on arms control and effort on small arms brokering. The responsibility of the Home Office for anti-corruption legislation—still awaited—is a heavy one, in view of the devastating effect corruption by developed country companies has on developing economies and democracies. The Department of Trade and Industry's influence over the standards of the Export Credit Guarantee Department is another part of the anti-corruption jigsaw.
	The Foreign Office uses its Global Opportunities Fund to strengthen governance in emerging markets so that economic growth can be sustained, and it works to implement the United Nations Resolution 1325 to enlarge the role of women in conflict resolution, who, of course, suffer disproportionately in war.
	The home departments of health, education, environment, work and pensions, revenue collection, among others, contribute their expertise as part of a remarkable government front against poverty in the developing world.
	All this, of course, is in most cases co-ordinated by the real experts in poverty reduction, the Department for International Development, and where it is not, I suggest it should be. DfID, under the leadership of my right honourable friend Hilary Benn, has a strategic focus which directs a mighty British engine at the world's most pervasive evil. I quote:
	"An independent panel of government auditors recently declared DfID a model for effective delivery".
	But I am not quoting DfID there; I am quoting The Economist. I met a friend recently who had come back to this country after 10 years away and said, "What has happened to international development? When I went away, the department was small, impoverished and on the margins of government. Now it is respected all over the world, has really significant funding and leads central government policy".
	DfID directs this in alliance with my right honourable friend the Chancellor, whose role in debt reduction, advocating world support for increased aid, financial instruments of leverage like the international financing facility and DfID's own increasing budget—which has nearly doubled in real terms since 1997, making it the fourth largest donor in the world— makes one of the magnificent partnerships in the history of the government of this country.
	If we play our full part and persuade others to follow our example, along with the other great nations in international development like Sweden, Norway and the Netherlands and emerging ones like Japan, the realisation of the millennium development goals is within the world's grasp. If we do not, we shall have let slip the first and greatest opportunity to make poverty history. In two months, the Africa Commission, set up by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, but with a majority of African members, will need support for its recommendations. Next September, world leaders will assess progress towards the millennium development goals. Before that, the UK will chair G8, as well as the presidency of the European Union. So this opportunity is hugely in our hands, and there is a need for the public throughout the developed world to put pressure on politicians now to reflect their concerns.
	I am sure we all agree that it is economic growth which makes real, permanent inroads into poverty, and that the purpose of development aid is to propel equitable economic growth.
	DfID's focus has been to confer ownership of development on the nation states themselves through direct budget support for the very first basis of growth—health, sanitation and education, with appropriate conditions to make investment effective. Thus, Uganda has universal primary education and Tanzania has very recently brought primary education enrolment from 50 per cent to 90 per cent, with British help. DfID's work in conflict resolution and post-conflict restoration, as well as humanitarian aid, supplements this. But it is now also refashioning its policy on agricultural support to enable rapid smallholder productivity growth, such a feature of the Asian rise to prosperity. No doubt it will draw on the new report of the Inter-Academy Council to the UN Secretary-General—Realising the Promise and Potential of African Agriculture—which proposes means to achieve ample food security for the whole continent. But I hope DfID will go beyond food security to helping make agricultural development the springboard for growth.
	The paradox of agriculture is that only expansion of agriculture can bring developing regions out of poverty, because such an overwhelming proportion of the people in poor countries are employed in it, and no other sector could provide work for so many people who need work; but then it must also diminish as a proportion of GDP. Growth cannot increase without accompanying development in manufacturing and services, with the prizes going to those which have seized the most technological opportunities and produced the most trained workforce. For instance, a new, effective cure for malaria, the killer of most African children, has been extracted from the plant artemisia, which is in very short supply and is now being cultivated in Kenya and Tanzania. If the drug could be manufactured there rather than grown only as a cash crop and shipped unprocessed to Novartis, how much more value-added and training the local workforce would accumulate.
	I would like to say one more thing about that workforce. It is increasing. There is a sharp rise in the proportion of adults aged 15 to 60 in sub-Saharan Africa. When a similar event occurred in Asia, there was a huge rise in growth and in the share of growth which went to the poor, because demand for labour rose equally fast, initially mainly because of the needs of successful smallholder production, according to very interesting research by Michael Lipton and Robert Eastwood. Subsequently, investment in competitive, highly technical industries provided opportunities for training and further employment. Of course, countries like India and China had previously also invested in basic infrastructure, including education. This proportionate increase in the labour force in sub-Saharan Africa is likely to be slowing down by 2050, so if its benefit is to be reaped, the infrastructure must be laid down now.
	Together with physical infrastructure and research, human capital must be developed. Throughout Africa there are not enough people trained in the skills needed by the growth industries. Even South Africa has only increased enrolment at tertiary level in technical subjects to 13 per cent, as compared with Thailand and Malaysia's 30 per cent. This is where partnerships of aid agencies, NGOs and the private sector could make a remarkable difference. Cultures need to change. Uganda is not alone in paying too much respect to academic tertiary education and not enough to technical skills aimed at greater productivity. As well as trade policy, productivity policy should be an essential part of national poverty reduction strategies, and DfID works with developing country governments to help this along.
	Poverty reduction strategies could in particular improve growth by paying attention to women. DfID knows well how women's work is pivotal in development, and my noble friend Lady Royall will speak about that.
	In conclusion, this Government have arguably done more than any in our history to reduce poverty in developing countries, but more than ever in our history are we all at risk from the misfortunes of each other. War, disease, crime, harmful drugs and terror do not respect national boundaries. As long ago as 2002, Mary Robinson said in her Commonwealth lecture:
	"We now understand in a more profound way that no nation can isolate or exclude itself from the effects of global problems of endemic poverty and conflict".
	If it was true then, it is even more true now.
	We have a unique opportunity to influence profoundly the chances of those of our fellow human beings whom circumstances and error have served badly and thus, incidentally, to secure for ourselves a safer and more prosperous future. The British people's moving contribution to tsunami disaster aid shows that we all care about the fate of others—so we should all put pressure on governments to confront those who keep systemic poverty in place through protectionism, lax controls on corruption, underfunding and the spread of small arms. We should take advantage of this moment in history, in part created by our own Government, to conquer deeply entrenched poverty.
	I look forward very much to the debate, and I beg to move for Papers.

Lord Eden of Winton: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness on the way in which she has introduced this debate. She speaks with great authority founded on her long experience of the subject under discussion. By comparison, my own few faltering words will appear lamentably facile. I put before your Lordships this afternoon three words—greed, garments, goats—the relevance of which I hope will become apparent in a few moments.
	The major efforts by governments and large organisations to alleviate poverty are vital. There is a need to ensure that, as far as possible, those efforts are precisely targeted and practical. We must ensure that the receiving end has a good administrative structure, not only at the top, but also well down the line. Two organisations, Oxfam and Merlin, set good examples of how to work in the field. They work with local people.
	If one understands the culture of the people one is trying to help, there may be a hope of curbing some of the enthusiasm of greedy local officials who so often manage to siphon off the assistance intended for poor people. That applies equally in the commercial world. Agreements made by directors sometimes have little impact at the workface. For example, the logging operations in Congo were, in my view, rather disgracefully promoted by the World Bank. The interests of indigenous people are being ignored and their livelihoods destroyed. If trade is the answer to poverty, which in part it certainly is, let the wealthy West be more open with its markets to the export of poorer countries' products.
	I have an interest in Sri Lanka. Many of those I know over there are totally dependent on the garment trade. What a difference it would make to them and to their future if the West were more liberal in opening its markets to their product. One way of lifting people out of poverty is to help them to help themselves. My friends Mr and Mrs Kotelawala in Sri Lanka head up a big organisation called the Ceylinco Group. They deploy the resources of the Grameen Bank. By means of making small loans, the bank provides start-up assistance on favourable terms to enable individuals, women as well as men, to establish themselves in business and so come to stand on their own feet.
	In the post-tsunami world, Sri Lanka has benefited enormously from the very substantial and imaginative assistance given by the Government and by voluntary organisations. I congratulate them on the tremendous work that is being done. It is both practical and sensitive, but tragically even here there is evidence of widespread corruption, jealousies and grotesque bureaucracy. My son, Jack Eden, and my stepson, Robert Drummond, both live in Sri Lanka. They have mobilised their charity, Friends of the South, to give direct help to individuals. They give tools to artisans to enable them to start up work again. They are providing all the equipment necessary to a shipbuilder who has lost everything so that he can begin to rebuild his own business. Even so, they are frustrated in their efforts by officialdom.
	I turn to my last word: goats. Where there are large populations of goats, there is invariably poverty. Where there is poverty, there are invariably large populations of goats. Goats are marauding and indiscriminately destructive creatures. In his typically trenchant piece in last week's Spectator, Matthew Parris described them as,
	"rank-smelling weapons of mass destruction".
	They destroy all vegetation, they kill reafforestation, they promote erosion and, in the long term, help to perpetuate poverty. Alternatives must be found.
	So, I have spoken of greed, garments and goats; three words to ponder in the context of this debate. If those three words could be addressed along the lines I have suggested, they would go some way to offering a better future to the world's poorer people.

Lord Roberts of Llandudno: My Lords, it is a privilege to have the opportunity to join in the debate initiated this afternoon by the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker. I come from Llandudno where we have a big problem with wild goats. There are around 260 of them wandering on the Great Orme, but I am sure that that is not the direction my speech should take today.
	First, however, I too want to comment on the magnificent response to the tsunami appeal. I am told that the funds raised now stand at £250 million, which makes this the largest response to any appeal in the history of the United Kingdom. At the weekend I was proud to note that Cardiff hosted the Wales Millennium Centre concert. But I am also proud of all the small communities where handfuls of people have raised hundreds, if not thousands of pounds. When people see a need, they do respond.
	That gives us an opportunity at this time, when need is so apparent, to engender a spirit of goodwill and generosity that could lead to the problems of poverty being tackled not just by governments, but taking their place in the hearts of the people. The opportunity is there, and it is one that I am sure we would squander at our risk.
	Let us remember the events of 9/11. The hearts of the world were with the people of New York and around the United States as a result of that terrible disaster. Yet, in only a little while, so much of that goodwill had gone as a result of the actions following the disaster. The spirit of goodwill can be lost in a very short time.
	We need to look at what has happened in the regions around the Indian Ocean and say to ourselves, "Here is a new opportunity". We must not then squander that opportunity. Thus, anything which follows that may undermine people's goodwill and generosity should be avoided at every step of the way. Action that arouses outrage and anger could do a great deal of damage, even though there is an opportunity for people to operate together and to begin to understand and sympathise with each other. It is not only governments which should take the lead, but also ordinary people.
	We know that resources are limited. Yesterday, sadly, I read that the President of the United States wants another 80 billion dollars to continue the occupation of Iraq. It is a sad story when that money could be used in more positive ways. Some time ago in this House, I asked the Minister about the cost of British intervention in Iraq. He said that it was £1.3 billion for nine months. I am told that it is now more than £5 billion. The money there cannot be spent elsewhere.
	We pass the despairing, poverty-stricken, hungry and hopeless on any march towards war and conflict. Opportunities are missed. I am sure that the Government have no intention of doing so, but any support by the United Kingdom for an incursion into Iran would bring such outrage that the 1 million people marching through London two years ago would be a fraction of those who would march on such an occasion.
	We must work together peacefully and constructively, through international organisations, whether it be to bring peace, to restrict terrorism or to make the most of opportunities to bring an end to poverty. This year, we are all challenged to make poverty history. I will not speak at great length today, but others will speak and say, "Yes, the opportunity is there. This is what we can do". We already have examples of what we could do to eradicate so much poverty, which is a blemish on the lives of countless millions of people.
	Some nation must take the lead. I am pleased about the efforts of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in Africa, so could the United Kingdom be the nation which says, "Look, this is our top priority in this coming year. The priority is to make poverty history."? We could do it if we could rise to that challenge.

The Lord Bishop of Southwell: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, for initiating this important debate. It is timely not only because of the appalling human tragedy in the tsunami and the crisis and international action flowing from it, but also because 2005 offers the British Government the unique set of opportunities to garner the necessary political will to help make poverty history.
	The disaster has seen thousands of lives lost and millions of livelihoods destroyed. The subsequent international response has highlighted, on the one hand, the fragility of human life and, on the other hand, the generosity of the human spirit. Like other noble Lords, one cannot but be moved by the passionate and charitable response of private donors and individuals.
	The subsequent pledges by governments and international institutions will be crucial for Asia's long-term reconstruction. These pledges are to be applauded provided that they are honoured. They must represent new money, rather than the recycling of money already allocated to existing aid efforts for the poorest parts of our planet. A welcome moratorium on debt repayments for those countries most affected by the tragedy can be no substitute for the comprehensive cancellation of the unpayable debts of all the world's poorest countries.
	Emergency assistance to those in immediate need and debt relief for the poorest must surely be accompanied by the determination on the part of the international community to tackling those systemic barriers, referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, such as the imbalance in international trade, which continue to prevent many countries in the region realising their full economic potential.
	Ongoing trade negotiations and the implementation of new trade rules should not compromise the ability of countries affected by the tsunami to rebuild their livelihoods. As such, aid and debt relief must not be conditional on economic policy reforms such as privatisation, fiscal austerity or trade liberalisation.
	The challenge, however, is to see how we can move from the particular, responding to the suffering and devastation caused by the tsunami, to the general, finding effective and sustainable mechanisms to tackling global poverty. It would be a terrible human failure if international compassion for victims of the tsunami blotted our compassion for the many millions of other people suffering from other humanitarian crises—from Darfur in Sudan, to Uganda, the Congo and Zimbabwe or the tens of thousands of people who die each day from poverty.
	This poverty is sustained not by chance or nature, but by our human failing. It is a scar on our collective conscience. As the Church of England's House of Bishops' recognised in a statement earlier this month:
	"emergency relief and development aid count for little if the underlying causes of poverty and deprivation, such as the injustice and imbalances in current global trade practices are not addressed.
	The impressive international response to the tsunami disaster stands in marked contrast with the lack of political will that has so far frustrated the attainment of the Millennium Development Goals (MDG). Given the conclusion of the UN Millennium Project's report that the MDGs are both affordable and achievable, it would be nothing short of scandalous if these targets were not met.
	The specific recommendations of the Sachs report will no doubt be heavily debated. Such debate, while welcome, should not obscure the report's most basic point; namely, that with sufficient political will the MDGs can be met. Although the Sachs report provides a vision of how the world might look in 2015 if the goals are met, we should not be blind to what the world might look like if the goals remain elusive. Failure to meet these targets will result in shrinking islands of prosperity in a growing sea of depravity giving rise to an unbearable level of marginalisation and alienation.
	It is encouraging that a number of the Sachs recommendations echo those made by the Chancellor in his speech earlier this year advocating the need for a new Marshall Plan. The decision to prioritise debt relief, aid and trade will have given immense encouragement to a significant number of people who have campaigned tirelessly on these issues in recent years.
	As a member of the Make Poverty History Coalition, we, on this Bench, recognise that the issues of trade, debt and aid are inextricably linked and we are committed to achieving change on all three. The Government can be assured that the Church of England, alongside many other members of the Make Poverty History Coalition, will mobilise its own constituency at key opportunities in 2005 to encourage the Government to drive forward the struggle against poverty and injustice. In doing so, we will repeatedly remind the Government that the MDGs are both achievable and affordable.

Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I, too, congratulate my noble friend Lady Whitaker on introducing the debate with her customary authority. I greatly value her authority and expertise in development policy issues in her membership of the Council of the Overseas Development Institute. I declare an interest as chairman of that council.
	Like other noble Lords, I congratulate the Government on their leadership in raising the fundamental issues of global poverty in forums such as the G8 and the European Union. I commend their specific current policies, particularly the proposals on the international finance facility and debt relief. But I also support the policy of raising general aid levels to the 0.7 per cent of GDP by 2013. I support the so-called "Marshall Aid" plan for Africa.
	However, noble Lords will be aware that recently some distinguished commentators and economists—I am glad to see my noble friend Lord Desai in his place as he has certainly contributed to this—have argued that aid in the conventional sense is an ineffective and inefficient method of reducing poverty. To put it in headline terms, with which I am sure he would disagree, they argue that the state of governance and levels of corruption in many African states are so bad that we should not pour more financial aid into a black hole which may lead directly to Swiss bank accounts. The noble Lord, Lord Eden, has already spoken of greed in this context.
	My concern is that we must not abandon conventional aid programmes in the hope that taking this line will stimulate more rapid reform. The humanitarian, economic and public health crises in sub-Saharan Africa are too immediate for that approach. After all, poverty is increasing rather than decreasing in that area, where 46 per cent of the population are living on less than a dollar a day.
	On the other hand, I do not think it is any longer sufficient for donor governments simply to "exhort" their counterparts to change their ways or to impose conventional conditionality on aid. The scale of inadequate governance and need in the poorest states is too great for that.
	For example, indicators developed by the World Bank on effective government and the rule of law show only a handful of sub-Saharan African countries scoring more than 25 per cent. Another international checklist, which uses the criteria of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and assesses political freedoms and civil liberties, puts fewer than a quarter of African countries in a positive category.
	I very much welcome DfID's new initiative announced this month on these so-called "fragile" states which aims to give more rather than less aid to them but, at the same time, to confront the problems of instability and corruption head on, to give help to institution building and to try to move to a more preventive than reactive position on current crises.
	I am also pleased to see that after a somewhat tortuous process, my right honourable friend Patricia Hewitt has agreed a public review, through the Export Credit Guarantees Department, of the new anti-bribery rules. Initially, these had seemed a laudable attempt to reduce corruption involving UK companies, but then appeared to have been rather watered down. Perhaps in his reply my noble friend Lord Triesman could elucidate a little more on the current situation in regard to these anti-bribery rules because there have been conflicting reports about them in the press in recent days.
	Overall, DfID is leading an encouraging new approach to aid through its "Drivers of Change" programmes, which involve political analysis of traditional systems and social development initiatives in fragile states receiving aid. It also puts an emphasis, which I am very glad to see, on the work of NGOs in delivering aid at the grass roots. I know from one of my own daughters, who is working on such a programme currently in Bangladesh, that where these initiatives are culturally sensitive, culturally appropriate and work with the grain of the local understanding of leadership and accountability, for example, real progress can be made.
	The "capable" state, as defined by the UN's Economic Commission for Africa, is still, I am sure, a distant aspiration for many sub-Saharan countries, but at least through the work of NePAD—the New Partnership for Africa's Development—and the OECD, key indicators of change are being developed and a path for reform is being mapped out.
	On crucial matters, such as the independent oversight of government spending and public sector management, the Economic Commission for Africa wants both aid donors and recipients to establish what it calls mutual accountability for investment and reform programmes; to accept mutual accountability for their outcomes. As the executive secretary of the commission wrote very recently:
	"When development aid is made available both sides of the relationship have obligations".
	Our Government, I am sure, can take the political lead in recognising these obligations and acting on them, and also in creating the practical tools to ensure that aid is better spent on the ground. Aid properly spent does work; and to achieve the millennium development goals we need to make it work, even in the most fragile and failing states.

Lord Selsdon: My Lords, it is rather sad that on this great and important subject the party of government will speak for 107 minutes, the Official Opposition for 22 minutes, the Liberal Democrats for 24 minutes, the Cross-Benches for 18 minutes and the right reverend Prelate for six minutes. As I was told I should speak for only five minutes, I wish to protest slightly.
	When I first came to this House only 42 years ago, these independent debates on Wednesdays were cross-party; there was no division between us, as there is not on this subject. If you were lucky enough—or unfortunate enough—to be given the time, you would be asked to choose a number of people who knew their subject, all of whom would speak without notes. You would write a hand-written letter to them—I made the mistake of sending a typed letter once—asking them if they would be kind enough to speak. They would write back and the debate would be staged so that no one repeated what was said. But now I feel rather like John Cleese in the film "Clockwise"—"One minute".
	I will now turn to my subject and a topic which will include goats and Gleneagles. I begin by explaining how I got involved in what we called the third world and which consisted of most parts of Africa. I then got involved in and was promoted, like British Rail, to the second world, which was eastern Europe, where there was considerable poverty. I ended up in the banking world as an adviser to many third world countries, my favourite of which was the Government of Jamaica because I was conceived on the beach. Part of our plan was to try to replace the trade in what we called the "weed of wisdom" with more suitable agricultural products.
	I was out there when in came the United States of America to try to put pressure upon Jamaica to boycott—an Irish word—Grenada. ODA had just finished building the airport there to open up Grenada when the Secretary of State, Mr George Bush, came to put pressure on Jamaica. He said "You know, you must boycott Grenada". Then the Prime Minister, Edward Seaga, and his team said to me "Malcolm, is it really true that Boycott is going to play cricket in South Africa?".
	I had an involvement in government with sport and noble Lords may remember that, in the end, it was the Gleneagles agreement that got rid of apartheid. The United States has never understood that baseball is played only in Cuba and one of the other Caribbean countries—and American football not in many places—but cricket, rugby and soccer are played worldwide. We look at the performance now of our great premier leagues, where the third world, if I can call it that, is present. The sense of pride that it has in the achievements of its stars in sport has helped to raise the standards of thought and pleasure of its countries.
	I shall not tell your Lordships how the Sudan could have been made the breadbasket of the Arab world in 1974 and could grow enough grain for the whole of Africa—but politics got it wrong. So with politics, trade and finance are the key aspects.
	We once upon time had a facility known as the ATP—the aid and trade provision facility. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, for starting off in the right way. We cannot get rid of poverty unless there is added value in the countries concerned and unless there is trade. One of the original thoughts—which is not new when I look at the Baker plan and I see the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, and think of the remarkable work that IFC did to try to encourage investment—is that we need to buy.
	Any orders that we place should be financed by the equipment that comes in. Yesterday, when I heard that British uniforms were to be made in China, I thought that maybe they could be made in another country. When you consider all the textiles consumed by the National Health Service, you could place a regular order to any one of those host countries. This could lead to the supply of the equipment, then to the training of their people and the buy-back, as is done with energy. These actions, in theory and in practice, are fairly reasonable.
	But we should look, too, to the great Victorian entrepreneurs and philanthropists. I am extraordinarily impressed by the decision of Bill Gates to put—not as a grant—750 million dollars into the principle of vaccinating people in order to save lives. Looking back to the Jesse Boot's of this world, the Peabody's and Sir Thomas Salt, we should realise that many great corporations could be encouraged to make these gestures, but as investments and not as grants.
	I was moved to note, with all the money produced for these recent disasters, that the one body that said it had enough money was Médecins Sans Frontieres. The other organisations said "We want more money, we want more money", but had not decided what to do with it. It is very simple: you need communications, accommodation and plant and machinery to make what the nations are good at.
	The new Gleneagles agreement should be drafted today, planned and introduced rapidly. At the moment we are playing Simon says. Tony says "Do this", Gordon says "Do that"—but Peter is in Brussels and could wind up the Commission on these matters.
	It is a matter of creating that added value and, in the United Kingdom, realising that many of these countries are Commonwealth countries and bringing together the Commonwealth. Forget not that there will be other disasters. I sit down with the perishing thought that as many people were killed in this recent disaster as were killed by British and Empire troops during the last world war.

The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, the noble Baroness has again led us into a timely discussion of poverty. We have heard the Chancellor skilfully draw our attention back to Africa and the many challenges there. The tsunami has again concentrated our attention on the immediate relief of suffering, but we must keep disasters in proportion. Even the record numbers of dead and displaced this time are small beside the casualties of war in Africa, the Middle East and Asia. In Sri Lanka alone, tens of thousands had died before the tsunami. A similar number of dead in Iraq, including civilians, has hardly evoked international sympathy on the scale we have recently seen. Why is that?
	The numbers of war dead are again eclipsed by the hundreds of millions of absolute poor, of whom millions suffer untimely death from treatable diseases. Their pain can be just as acute as drowning or gunshot wounds. It would be absurd to make these comparisons academically. I seek only to refocus attention on the more fundamental needs of one in six of humanity, which in some ways may be easier to meet than those of the victims of natural disasters.
	I welcome the Secretary of State's new commitment in this context, but it is not a foregone conclusion that the millennium development goals will be met even in Asia. For example, India, with more than 300 million people living below the poverty line, is simultaneously a leading industrial nation and one of the poorest. India suffered enormous losses and damage from the tsunami and yet, with its considerable experience of emergency relief, it preferred not to seek help but to look after its own and many of Sri Lanka's victims too. But it was a typically mixed message, because with so much poverty in many areas, India still needs and benefits from international aid.
	One of the critical factors in the complex maths of world poverty is the caste system. Its victims are largely invisible. So many of us subconsciously recognise caste as important; just as many of us turn away from it as an intractable problem. Yet the new Indian Government have to combat rural poverty, and the needs and rights of India's dalits, as they are called, are paramount. There are about 160 million dalits—formerly called untouchables—so that with 300 million people living on less than a dollar a day, there is a close link between poverty and caste.
	Every week Indian newspapers are full of appalling crimes—exploitation and murder at the hands of high-caste landlords and political bosses. The caste system takes its toll in death, as it does in life. In emergencies, the poorest victims are always the last to be found in the debris, and their families are sometimes ignored and left to care for their own. And it is usually they who have to remove the bodies.
	We often speak of rights in these debates, but for these people, rights hardly exist. The lowest castes in India are often unaware that the law is on their side, although their employers manage to take every precaution to avoid it.
	Human rights and legal education can go much further than economic development, although I hear what the noble Baroness says, because such work gives families the chance to improve their lives using existing legal channels. I hope to pursue this issue through a visit to dalit organisations in India during the coming Recess. I have only one question for the Minister: does he consider that caste is preventing India meeting its millennium development goals, and to what extent is the dalit community a focus of DfID policy?
	It will require courage for aid workers to tackle poverty in states such as Bihar, where only good governance will really make a difference. More than half of India's poor live in only four states.
	India's millennium development goals figures are most encouraging. Income poverty is falling steadily by all standards, and infant mortality is well down, from 127 per 1,000 births in 1970 to 68 in 2000. But there are many regional variations, and poverty indicators suggest that most targets are unlikely to be met by 2015. While the infant mortality rate has halved nationally, it is unlikely to fall as low as the target of 27 per 1,000 births by 2015.
	The percentage of children under three who were malnourished in Orissa actually rose during the 1990s and the figure improved only marginally in other states. Even primary education may not hit the target: only 75 per cent of girls attend primary schools, and only two thirds complete their primary school education. Even DfID, with its considerable reputation in India, says that these goals are possible to meet only with effort. While water targets are good, those for access to sanitation—still below 30 per cent—are not. India still has a long way to go.

Lord Parekh: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Whitaker for introducing this extremely important debate relating to the abolition of poverty in developing countries. This is one area in which the Labour Government have done a great deal of which to be proud. They have untied the aid budget so that poor countries receiving aid from us remain free to buy goods and services from the most cost-effective sources.
	The Government have also increased the aid budget, almost doubling it since they came to power in 1997, and I am glad to hear that they intend to double it again and reach the United Nations target of 0.7 per cent by 2015. I particularly welcome the effort being made by the Government in reforming the common agricultural policy in the European Union and also with regard to the well known Commission for Africa.
	If we keep going at this pace, I would not be surprised if the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer were, in three or four years' time, to receive the Nobel Peace Prize. I very much hope that they will. That could be the first time that a present and a future Prime Minister both receive the Nobel Peace Prize for the enormous effort they are making. I wish them well.
	While I compliment the Government on what they have done so far, we still have a long way to go. We talk about 2015, by which time we want to halve world poverty. By 2015, at the current reckoning, between 80 and 100 million people will have died of poverty and disease. That is too large a number to contemplate. In fact, each one of these deaths indicts and diminishes us.
	Even then, the question remains. This is not the first time we have seen efforts in this direction. It happened in the mid-1960s and again in the mid-1970s. It is very easy to lose momentum in these matters. What should we be doing so that the momentum that we have generated is kept up? That will require a clear and unambiguous programme of action, a firm institutional structure in place so that it generates its own logic, and a mobilising of popular support so that even when governments slacken, enough steam will come from people at large to make sure that the process continues.
	That leads me to a few important points. Poverty, by and large, as all the economists and political scientists will certify, is a result of four important factors. First, the heavy indebtedness of some countries means that a large amount of their money or earnings goes towards servicing the debt, leaving them very little to develop their own infrastructure. Secondly, there is political instability and civil war, a great deal of corruption and lack of social conscience in many of the developing countries. The third factor is unfair trade, about which I need not say more because many noble Lords have spoken about this, and the fourth is lack of resources. Those are the four fundamental factors responsible for the enormous amount of poverty that stares us in the face in the world at large. We should be asking ourselves what we can do on each front.
	Naturally, there is a good deal to be done by the poor countries themselves. Civil wars are not sent by gods, nor are they natural events. They are human creations, and there is a great deal that those countries can do themselves. They can also do a great deal about the corruption that prevails. Nevertheless, there is a substantial agenda to be addressed by us, and I want to speak about these four factors very briefly.
	On debt relief, I think we have taken a lead. I remember some years ago—in 1997 or 1998—when I was involved in a movement that Bishop Tutu started in Britain, in my own city of Hull. Although we have taken that on board, we have not really pushed the matter as much as we could have done.
	On the question of civil wars and political instability, although a great deal needs to be done by the countries themselves, we cannot entirely be absolved of our own responsibility. The major powers have caused a good deal of harm to developing countries by using them as pawns in geo-political strategies—in Afghanistan or Iraq, for example. I can give noble Lords half a dozen examples straight away. If we cannot at least help them we ought to ensure that we abstain from inflicting harm on them. Some of the civil wars are in fact caused by our own policies, wittingly or unwittingly, and if we could at least learn to discipline ourselves and not use those countries as pawns, we would have done enough on that front.
	I turn to the two last questions, of fair trade and aid. Many noble Lords have spoken on fair trade, and I do not want to spend too much time on it, except to hope that when the Doha round takes place in December in Hong Kong, we will at least have reached a broad consensus on what we should be doing. As for aid, it is important to bear in mind that some economies like to argue that fair or free trade will do the trick and that aid is not really important. I do not think that would wash, for the very simple reason that many poor countries do not have the facilities—the infrastructure, the water supply, basic education, roads, ability to eliminate diseases, and so on—and they need foreign aid.
	That aid can come not only from government sources, although that is quite important of course; when we talk about 0.7 per cent, we are directing our attention to the Government. But there are lots of other sources from which aid can come. The global lottery is one that has been talked about; Tobin tax is another; and I can think of many others, such as individuals earmarking a certain percentage of their income to be collected by the national government. What is important is to bear in mind that none of those things can work unless we recognise a certain spirit of global solidarity. That spirit of solidarity is missing, and without it we cannot generate the momentum. That would require some very imaginative gestures, such as creating an international poverty day in which we all participate.

Baroness Flather: My Lords, I start by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, for initiating this debate. I am grateful for the opportunity to say something about my favourite subject. All noble Lords have spoken about poverty, poor countries and poor people, but nobody has yet spoken about the poorest of the poor. These are not the dalits, by the way, but women. In every poor country, they suffer more from poverty, disproportionately, than the men. I do not know how many of your Lordships are aware that in developing countries, women's health overall is twice as bad as men's. The health of the wives is twice as bad as that of the husbands.
	The Chancellor has recently been to Africa; we all know about that; and he, too, has discovered that women can be agents of change. Maybe we will see a new era when people will start to focus on those agents of change. So far as I know, there has never been a real concerted effort to focus on women and see how they can contribute to family prosperity and poverty alleviation in so many different ways. Whenever the NGOs have tried different kinds of projects, they have been hugely successful—amazingly successful.
	Grameen Bank was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Eden. It started in Bangladesh as a normal lending bank, but very soon realised that money came back only from the women, so it became a bank lending to women alone. Hundreds of thousands of women have been helped to acquire independence and self-worth through the lending policies of Grameen Bank.
	It is clear that women benefit as soon as they can bring in some money from outside the family—and that they benefit from the interaction that they have with the other women. It gives them the fundamental necessity for all human beings, which is a sense of self-worth. Most of those women have been brought up to believe that they are not worth anything and are just there to look after the family. They are the last ones to eat and be looked after, and a means of getting a bit of money into the family gives them all those opportunities.
	I have mentioned Grameen, but I should like to mention Opportunity International as well, with which I know the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, is involved. That organisation has 487,000 clients, out of whom 84 per cent are women. Grameen has become a very big bank, although it did not start as such; it is producing mobile phones and does all sorts of other things. That is also the policy of Opportunity International—recycling money, so that a small loan, or micro-credit, comes back and is given to someone else. It does not involve huge sums of money being put in continuously.
	I have been involved with an Indian charity called Seva Mandir, which has set up in a village in Udaipur and given the women some piecework, such a embroidery and sewing. I went to see those women, and it was a joy to see their upbeat appearance and the way in which they behaved. They have managed to get themselves a place to wash and bathe. Noble Lords may well ask, "Don't they have a place to wash and bathe?" No, they do not; they cannot even ask for that because they do not have any self-worth to begin with.
	I personally feel very strongly that the millennium development goal on education and Western notions about equality have held back some of the initiatives. Unless women begin to realise that they can achieve something and are capable, they will not look to education or think in terms of other aspects of life. Equality is a very long way off and we do not have the time to wait for those concepts to become part of their life. Let us get them started on the road—that is the key thing.
	I cannot tell noble Lords how many women have told me that they want their children to be educated and that they do not want them to have a life like their own. Men have never said that to me—and do not forget the peer group pressure on men and women. If you give men some money, what will they do? At least part of it they will drink, part they will gamble, and they will come home and they will beat up their wife. This is not a joke—it is a fact. Women on the other hand will save the money and try to help the family and improve the situation.
	I have no time to tell noble Lords about all the things I wanted to talk about. However, one fact that I would like to leave noble Lords with is that a lot of monogamous women in India are HIV positive. Many of them are not allowed to go to the clinics because it brings shame on the family. Those who are very against family planning and abortion should remember that 200 women die every day from unsafe abortions. So do let us think about the poorest of the poor, the ones without any human rights, including the dalits. They do not treat their women well. Those who are discriminated against should not discriminate. And for those who are interested in goats, they make very good curry.

Baroness Massey of Darwen: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lady Whitaker on securing this debate and inspiring so many noble Lords to participate. My brief contribution will be about the importance of the education of girls in reducing poverty and improving the life chances of whole populations. That follows on appropriately from the contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Flather—although it was not planned, I assure noble Lords.
	I was glad to see a new DfID strategy for girls' education called, appropriately, "A Better Future for All", launched this morning. That will please the noble Baroness, I believe. My own interest in this matter stems from working for some years as the DfID project officer in health education and reproductive health in a variety of countries.
	Both the millennium development goals and the Dakar "Education for All" agreement speak of the importance of education. In the Dakar agreement, one of the goals is:
	"Ensuring that by 2015 all children, particularly girls . . . have access to complete, free and compulsory primary education of good quality".
	The UNICEF report Childhood Under Threat points out that around 121 million children, mainly girls, do not attend school and are denied their right to education—a right to which their governments committed themselves under the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The failure to meet millennium development goals will be that 75 million children—70 per cent of them in sub-Saharan Africa—will be denied their right to primary education in 2015.
	A wise essay by the economic educator Joseph Stiglitz, entitled "A Willing World Can End Child Poverty", says that,
	"a lack of education . . . has severe and lifelong repercussions for children. Study after study confirms the high economic returns to both individuals and economies from investment in education".
	And it would cost only 40 dollars a year per student.
	So is the world willing to tackle this? Will the Minister tell the House what sums DfID intends to spend on the education of girls in its new strategy and also whether there are examples of good practice to educate girls in developing countries? For resolving this issue will take imagination and dedication as well as more funding.
	The challenges for educating girls are many and include, as the DfID strategy points out, the accessibility of schools—are they within reasonable distance? Are they safe for girls? Are there appropriate teachers? Some girls may learn better with a female teacher. Is the girl healthy and able to learn, or is she burdened with household chores or working to supplement the family income? Is she expected to marry and have children early? Does she have parents who can support a family? Do they value education for girls and can they afford it? Will the girl's standing in the community rise with education and will there be new opportunities? If not, her parents may not be interested in educating her.
	Girls themselves may need more than basic education. They may also need, as a report from the Forum on Marriage and the Rights of Women points out, to develop skills and confidence and have an enabling environment where they can feel empowered. That may benefit reproductive health decisions and contribute to removing the cycle of poverty, early marriage, too many children with little space between them, and, in turn, a low priority on education because it is not affordable.
	We should not forget that sexual and reproductive health problems account for 18 per cent of the total global burden of disease, 32 per cent among women. For every male child infected with HIV in Africa, between three and six girls are infected. In Uganda, children who have been to secondary school are four times less likely to become HIV positive. Those are telling figures and show that education is a powerful tool in improving health outcomes as well as for itself.
	The Convention on the Rights of the Child views the child as both an individual and as a member of a larger community. It confirms that governments have commitments and communities have commitments to all children, and this should not be gender specific. Much progress has been made since that declaration; for example, reductions in child mortality, increases in immunisation programmes, access to safe drinking water, fewer child deaths from diarrhoea and a reduction in cases of polio.
	The UN General Assembly special session on children, in May 2002, pledged to accelerate progress on child development, including quality education, protection from abuse and combating HIV/AIDS. Those commitments resulted in the agreement "A World Fit for Children".
	The education of girls can have a significant impact on the health and welfare of children and their families. The education of girls contributes to gender equality and to the recognition that children have rights. I hope that the Minister will be able to say in his summary that DfID will play a leading part in sustaining progress on the education of girls and on the welfare of children. This surely will have an impact on poverty as great as any other measures.

Lord Hylton: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, for introducing this debate and for her understanding of the importance of small farmers. I am probably speaking against my own interest as a farmer and landowner in England. I am concerned about the subsidies that developed countries pay on exported food and farm crops to the rest of the world, often to the poorest developing countries. These can take away the whole livelihood of small farmers and growers who may be earning little more than a dollar a day. Export of milk powder, for example, can be particularly harmful to poorer dairy farmers and may discourage breastfeeding, so important to the health of children in all countries.
	It is, of course, internationally agreed that export subsidies should be reduced and eventually abolished as distortions to fair trade. Some progress has been made; for example, in the European Union, where export subsidies have dropped from about 14 per cent to 5 per cent of the common agricultural policy total budget between 2000 and 2003. I shall come back to the size of export subsidies and the difficult task of ending them.
	I turn now to the benefits of stopping these subsidies. Money is immediately saved, which can be used for better purposes. Once dumping of cheap exports has ended, producers and consumers in developing countries are freed to make their own decisions and plans. I argue that this freeing of local and regional markets is a better form of help than direct aid or debt relief. That is so because both aid and relief require administration before they can be translated into better health and education services or other social investments. These desirable results can be achieved only slowly, whereas the ending of export subsidies should immediately start to put money into the hands of local people. Removing subsidised imports should stimulate local markets and be relatively unaffected by corruption or maladministration. The United Nations and other aid agencies have already admitted that an alarming proportion of aid is siphoned off and never reaches the poorest people.
	I come now to the scale of the subsidies in question. In 2003, the European Union spent 3.7 billion euros on agricultural export refunds. That was significantly less than in 2000, but more than in 2001 or 2002. The United States Government were recently spending over 6 billion dollars per year on agricultural exports including food aid. I mention in passing that food aid can have unhelpful effects similar to export subsidies. Cash aid or vouchers are in almost all cases better.
	In the case of cotton, the United States is thought to have subsidised 25,000 growers by more than 3.5 billion dollars. That is three times the amount of American aid to the whole of Africa and more than the entire gross domestic product of some African cotton-growing countries. European sugar subsidies are roughly equivalent to the current cost of fighting HIV/AIDS in Ethiopia or the whole cost per annum of primary healthcare in Malawi. World Bank advisers, as is well known, have been for some time saying that cutting farm export subsidies would reduce poverty, especially in Africa.
	Vested interests no doubt want to retain subsidies and are well organised. Next year, and 2007, will, however, bring real opportunities for reform, because both European Union and United States current policies expire, for example, for sugar, but also for other commodities. There has in the past been a tendency to say, "We can't stop our subsidies until the others do". The chance for all to stop is now coming and should be strongly supported by the World Trade Organisation, OECD and the G8. The EU and the US should act as partners and not as rivals in this.
	I conclude by asking the Government this question: will they make full use of their approaching chairmanship both of the EU and the G8 to end the current system of export subsidies?

Lord Brett: My Lords, I echo the appreciation expressed by others to my noble friend Lady Whitaker for giving us the opportunity to debate this subject. I shall try to rise to the challenge issued by the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, and not repeat what others have said, although I doubt whether I can match his eloquence in speaking for five minutes without notes.
	I declare an interest as the director of the International Labour Organisation for the United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland. However, it is not that bureaucratic experience that I want to bring to this debate but rather the experience of the previous 10 years when I served as a worker group chairman on the governing body of the ILO and travelled extensively in the developing world. That experience will result in my not repeating what others have said. In fact, I do not have to repeat their comments as I agreed with almost everything that they said. However, I am not quite sure I support the eradication of the goat for fear that as we speak a campaign is being launched to save the goat. That debate can wait another day.
	I turn to a point raised by my noble friend Lady Jay concerning DfID's policy on institution building. One institution that I believe is vital in the developing world is the trade union movement. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Jordan will speak with greater eloquence and knowledge of the subject than I as he led the World Trade Union Movement for six years and travelled even more extensively in the developing world than I did.
	The role of trade unions in the developing world is not limited to the workplace, as we might consider that it is in some parts of the United Kingdom. In the developing world trade unions are an essential element in the democratic process. It is not coincidental that in Poland in 1989 the opposition to communism was led by a trade union, Solidarnosc. It is not a coincidence that the aspiring presidential candidate in Zimbabwe, a good friend of the noble Lord, Lord Jordan, and I, Morgan Tsvangirai, and the parliamentary leader of the MDC in that Parliament, Gibson Sibanda, are the former president and secretary-general respectively of the Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions. Trade unions play an essential role in promoting democracy.
	Trade unions also play a role in fighting the terrible pandemic of HIV/AIDS. Trade unions in the workplace in South Africa were key to achieving an understanding of the need to prevent the spread of that terrible disease. Child labour and gender equality are also issues in which the trade union movement has a crucial part to play. But, alas, the trade union movement is being weakened by two factors. First, the move to privatisation and "leaner" government services at both a local and national level is resulting in public servants who are trade unionists becoming unemployed. Therefore, the trade unions to which those people belonged no longer have the funds that they need to carry on the work that they are trying to do; for example, work with street children in Brazil and with workers in informal employment in India.
	Secondly, the other social funding provided by trade unions in the wealthier northern hemisphere is also drying up because those unions are contracting in resource terms and do not have the necessary funds to continue that funding. Will the Minister consider specifically the role of trade unions in the institution building element of DfID? Excellent arrangements and systems to tackle these problems are in place in the United Kingdom within the trade union movement, the TUC and DfID. I refer to the Civil Society challenge funds, the Development Awareness Fund and the excellent document on labour standards and poverty eradication produced by DfID. DfID quite rightly dispenses the vast majority of its ODA at the country level. However, I am not sure at the country level that every DfID office and the staff within it fully understand the role of trade unions in this wider context. Will the Minister take that on board?
	In every DfID office part of the funding is exclusive and can be spent only on HIV/AIDS. Is it possible to consider allocating a part of funding to increase the capacity of trade unions to do their job and in particular to reach out beyond the formal sector into the informal sector? Trade unions can play a crucial part in building not only democracy but also some of those things that we rightly demand of developing countries; namely, better governance and anti-corruption. In a whole series of areas the trade union movement may constitute the only spokesperson. I refer to health and safety and the incident in Bhopal. The people who suffered most lived near that plant, which suffered from bad management.
	I do not think that we in this country, which benefits from a strong civil society, understand that in some developing countries the trade union movement constitutes the only real opposition to dictatorships. For example, Swaziland is a feudal kingdom. It has no democracy and parliamentary parties have been outlawed since 1974. A 30-year state of emergency has occurred. Unfortunately, the Foreign Office has announced that our High Commission in Swaziland is to close. I know from personal experience that the presence of successive High Commissioners has been essential to protect the lives of trade unionists who are the only democratic party, in a sense, allowed to operate in that country. I hope that the importance of trade unions in that regard is not forgotten. It will not be forgotten by my noble friend the Minister but I hope that DfID will give that matter closer attention. If it is, unions could form an inexpensive but central part of the fight to eradicate poverty.

Lord Desai: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Whitaker for initiating this debate which has attracted some good speeches, notably those of the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, and the noble Baroness, Lady Flather. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, as he said everything that I wanted to say about export subsidies and thereby saved me some time.
	My noble friend Lady Jay mentioned that I am something of a sceptic about the proposal to have a Marshall Plan. I must admit that whenever someone mentions the Marshall Plan, I develop a tic. I tend to think, "Oh, my God, not again". Tobin taxes lead to a similar reaction on my part. My reaction is due partly to the fact that those things will not happen. We are not going to have a Marshall Plan—forget it. We have a G8 that cannot even forgive debt, the receipts of which mean nothing to the national income. More money in the form of Marshall Aid will not be doled out. As that is not going to happen, the self-flagellation should stop.
	I am not arguing that aid is not effective, but to think that poverty will be eradicated by doubling the money is, I am sorry to say, lazy thinking. Poverty would be eradicated by giving small amounts of properly directed money to countries where it will work. Measuring things by inputs is wrong; one should measure achievement by outputs. I am very much of the opinion that debt forgiveness is absolutely essential. I hope that Gordon Brown will lock up the other members of the G8 in a room and say, "Unless you agree on debt forgiveness, you are not getting out of here", or something equally drastic.
	It is very important that we do something drastic about trade. Between debt and trade we are taking more money out of the third world than we are putting in. Therefore, the net flow of resources is negative and no amount of tsunami aid will improve that. We must get a total resource flow picture clear in our minds. With one hand we are giving aid and with the other we are collecting debt. That is a daft way of conducting policy.
	People say that health and education are very important—I do not deny that as I was part of the original human development report team and I contributed to that report for 13 years—but what that does is improve the supply of labour; it does nothing to increase the demand for labour. To increase the demand for labour you need proper investment either in agriculture or in industry. One either needs to encourage something on the domestic front so that resource flows improve or try to encourage the flow of private capital. No one has said anything so far about the flow of private capital. Eventually, a self-sustaining economy will have to have enough profitable business either in the countryside or in the urban areas. We are not all going to live off government jobs—we must have a viable economy. While problems such as malaria, HIV/AIDS, children's education and malnutrition are important, they are just one side of the equation and not the full answer.
	In a previous debate, I said that I would like to do a mental experiment of saying, "If we have 50 billion dollars in aid, given that there are a billion poor, can we find any way of giving 50 dollars directly to each poor person?". The Minister was surprised that I had said that, and she did not know what to say. I assure my noble friend that I expect no answer from him to anything that I say at any time. I was surprised to find that there is a small body of literature about this proposal. It has been pointed out by Professor Hanlon of the Open University that they tried this experiment in Mozambique—they tried to give money directly to poor people by a cheque that they could then take to the post office and cash. It proved that the poor know well how to use the money that they are given; they do not misuse the money. Giving 1 dollar per week to a poor person is at least a 15 per cent increase in their income, if not more, which is a substantial increase. However, we have not actually found any way of doing it. When we give money, the proportion that reaches the poor is perhaps 10 or 15 per cent of the dollar that we give. We must find less bureaucratic ways of giving money that are more direct and effective, so that the money actually reaches the poor and not the people who are writing poverty strategies—they are friends of mine and they do not deserve any money.

Lord Griffiths of Burry Port: My Lords, I add my tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, for instigating this debate. We started late because there was a Statement about combating terrorism, in the course of which it was mentioned that the prime duty of a Home Secretary or of any government is the security of the democracy and the state in which we live. That gives me a cue to begin any contribution that I can make to this debate. Some of the most fragile countries, and countries on the point of collapse, have such an absence of security that all talk of poverty alleviation is nonsense. The provision of security is of such a primordial nature that it is almost redundant and recondite for us to talk about grand strategies for alleviating poverty.
	I hope that I will not bore your Lordships by returning again and again in debates in this House to my own obsessions. I have in mind particularly a country a mere 90 minutes' flying time to the south of the landmass of the United States of America. I am conscious that I make my contribution to this debate less than a week after the inauguration of the President of the United States, in which the words "freedom" and "democracy" were widely blazoned abroad. I am talking about Haiti, where an absence of anything approaching what might meet any of the millennial development goals has been catalogued over the years. It is the poorest country in the western hemisphere. It could do with a dose of goats as much as anything else; I suspect that it would take anything.
	To indicate how when things are bad they get even worse, just last year there was a flash flood in September that brought deaths within a small concentration of land at the base of the Artibonite in the city of Gona-ves that was pretty near tsunami levels; 3,000 within a tiny concentration of land. That had been preceded in May by another similar accident in which a further 3,000 were killed in Haiti. That occurred in a year when political turmoil on an unprecedented scale—even for that poor, beleaguered country—had seen the ousting of the last fig leaf of constitutional government, only to be replaced by government by renegades and convicted criminals and with a political vacuum such as I have not known in the whole history of Haiti, about which I have written extensively.
	This tiny country has its own word to say about freedom; it was the first black republic in the world, and these were the first slaves to overthrow their colonial masters, yet there is this dreadful situation. This week I received a detailed study of a recent visit to Haiti that was undertaken by a group from the Center for the Study of Human Rights in the University of Miami. It is almost mind-boggling, and the photographs simply ought not to be seen without a doctor's paper. They are of youngsters in the street shot one at a time by the security police simply for having sympathies with the ousted president. Each one of them was shot in the back of the head, the fifth to such an extent that his head was blown off by some large-calibre weapon, I know not what.
	In the Government newspaper Le Nouvelliste, there is a feature called the "Baghdad Column", which talks about the latest kidnappings and beheadings. This is happening in a country where the United States, Canada and France have taken direct responsibility for this time of transition since the ousting of the constitutional government. The United Nations has a force of 9,000 there, but it seems that they are not using their special peace-making mandate to separate warring factions, but rather occupying a peace-keeping role instead, thus just adding to the suffering.
	I know that better things can happen to alleviate poverty in Haiti, because to a large extent I have done them. I agree with the previous speaker, that if a dollar can go to a person much improvement can take place. I have planted trees and seen that they grow, organised co-operatives and seen that they work, organised literacy campaigns and established primary health care systems and founded and overseen schools; I therefore know that the energies that have never been tapped are the energies of the peasant people of Haiti. From that, we can draw conclusions that might be helpful in other places. It is possible that in the poorest countries, even those on the verge of collapse, better things might be done. All the grand strategies that have been alluded to in this debate must at the end of the day be measured by outcomes; the betterment of ordinary people who are trapped by their poverty.

Baroness D'Souza: My Lords, I too wish to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, for securing this debate. By far the greatest trigger for extreme poverty and destitution is the enforced movement of communities due to conflict, drought, government land policies, and/or multinational investments, among other factors. A community that is forced to move is by definition vulnerable, because existing networks and coping strategies, which all small-scale societies have, are grossly disrupted. For these reasons, groups rarely move voluntarily, but when they do so it is an indication of their desperation.
	Endemic or chronic poverty is characterised more by a narrowing of income-earning choices and a consequent reduction in the variety of income sources. Destitution happens when there are no longer any choices to be made and the single source of income has dried up. In nearly all cases of extreme poverty and destitution, the cause is broadly political and to do with decisions made by governments over which people have no control but which adversely affect their lives and livelihoods. The obvious answer to ending poverty is to create democracies conducive to stability, development, investment and transparency. But that is long-term work, and the poor and the destitute need assistance today.
	The task is to build protection against extraneous events that precipitate poverty or destitution and/or to underpin methods of social security within communities—even displaced communities. However, development agencies accept that it is difficult to assist the really poor. There is typically no infrastructure through which external aid can be fairly distributed. Aid can also undermine fragile local coping strategies, such as mechanisms for income transfer, as in the hiring of seasonal labour, the building of local food reserves or the maintenance of distant family networks as social security.
	It is estimated that there are about 600 million children the world over who live in extreme poverty—that is, about one in four. In China, the figure is 4.2 million children and, although improvements in the standard of living generally have helped to reduce chronic poverty in that country, the move from a centrally planned economy to a globalised market economy has introduced new kinds of vulnerability. For example, the public sector lost about 31 million jobs between 1995 and 2000; the introduction of health and education charges has put pressure on households; and liberalisation has resulted in huge migration—something like 120 million since 1990—from the rural areas to the cities in search of better opportunities.
	Poverty can turn to destitution very suddenly. Perhaps I may give one example. In a town in south-western China, a man's sole source of income was from collecting stray plastic bags which he then tried to sell. His wife collected discarded vegetables and cooked them into a thin soup for sale in the daily market. The family of four had travelled from the far north to try to escape relentless poverty. They had no relatives anywhere nearby, and they belonged to a downtrodden ethnic group. Then the small daughter had a serious accident in which she fell into an oil vat in the market, with subsequent terrible injuries requiring surgery if she were to grow normally. The wife became emotionally and mentally distraught, unable to look after the children or to work. I hardly need tell your Lordships that the prognosis for this family was not very good. That is a real example but one of extreme circumstances.
	Amartya Sen, the economist, argues that destitution arises not so much from entitlement failures but from the causes of entitlement failures. If we are serious about alleviating poverty, we must be able, first, to monitor increasing failures in entitlement before destitution sets in.
	There are macro and micro ways of reducing poverty. Today, I am concerned with developing more efficient methods of identifying vulnerability at the community and even household levels and the introduction of capacity-building schemes, even among the destitute. There is a great deal of research in this area of development, but I think that one issue that still needs attention is how best to bring together the resources of democracy and development programmes for synergistic effect. Both democracy and development initiatives are multimillion dollar businesses, yet we also know that small-scale, local schemes from the bottom up really do make a difference, as has been said several times in this debate.
	Women have been empowered in communities all over the world. We also know from research that, once they have been empowered and protected from the daily threat of destitution, their earned resources will go into education and health schemes. Educating girls results in further development of the community—perhaps one of the only constant factors throughout the world. It has been said but it is perhaps worth saying it many times more: if you want development, educate girls.
	Small and organised local groups that make demands of local and regional government for supplies, roads or water purification are per se political groups. Politicised groups take on local issues and begin to have a voice. These groups can be strengthened through assistance with networking, small capital inputs, such as communications, leadership training, and legal and marketing services. The starting point is modest, highly localised material assistance specific to a given group's cultural norms and the end product is nascent democracy and civil society at the grass roots level. This is a hugely inexpensive way of delivering assistance.
	We need multilateral and bilateral aid to deal with trade, aid and debt. We need governments to pursue the millennium development goals with vigour. But we also need local initiatives that allow people to avoid destitution and provide choices upon which democracy can build. This is where development and human rights sometimes do, but always should, come together.

Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws: My Lords, I, too, pay tribute to my noble friend Lady Whitaker, who has always been a champion of the poor. It is wonderful that she persuaded the powers that be to make space for this debate tonight.
	It is a great source of pride to me that Labour in government has been playing such a powerful role in reminding the world of its responsibilities to the poor. This role for Britain in the international arena is what will inspire our young people. It is fair to say that many of our young have lost faith over the war in Iraq. But they know that there cannot be peace in the world without justice and they know that huge inequities fuel feelings of discontent. They care about poverty and they will be happy to know that the Government are playing such an important role. If our Government can gather the rich nations of the world around the flag of development, that will be a legacy of which we can be truly proud. So I add my admiration and appreciation to that of others for the energy and commitment of the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whose leadership has been awesome.
	I also felt particularly proud last Thursday night when I listened to "Question Time" on which our very own colleague, my noble friend Lady Amos, was one of the panel. She not only looked wonderful but, happily, she is a politician who does not speak like the talking clock, emitting a programmed response to questions. We all know what that is like. When she was asked about the Bush policy of exporting freedom, she very eloquently argued that real freedom could never be achieved without development and that poverty had to be alleviated if people were to enjoy any freedom that came their way. It is a view that I suspect we would heartily endorse.
	I want to speak today particularly about the position of women and the importance of women's voices in seeking to find ways to alleviate poverty. I am a patron of WOMANKIND Worldwide. It is a wonderful organisation which does incredible work in the poorest nations to improve the position of women and children. It has been making submissions to the Commission for Africa on the importance of women in any dynamic strategy to make poverty history. A number of things are at the heart of that. The reason that WOMANKIND Worldwide argued so strenuously over the position of women—it is an argument that I take with me because I am an adviser to the World Bank Institute—is that in many of the poorest countries women are the hope for the future.
	However, there are a number of problems, and among the ones that I want to highlight is unequal development programmes—the ways in which programmes are too often designed with men in mind and do not take account of the reality of women's lives in poor countries.
	I also want to emphasise the problem of unequal property laws. That point is crucial, and I say this as a lawyer who has, at times, heard and read the work of Hernando de Soto. He is a very interesting Latin American thinker, who points out the way in which law can change people's lives in the poorest countries. Women constitute the majority of small farmers in sub-Saharan Africa, yet, because of customary laws, they continue to be denied the right to own the land they cultivate. Therefore, achieving gender equality with respect to property is a critical aspect of sustainable development and it is something for which we should be pushing considerably.
	There are also unequal trade policies. Trade liberalisation and economic growth do not automatically lead to a reduction in poverty. The idea of liberalisation is being pushed on the developing world as the only way forward. I think that that should be challenged. It should be seen that some of these countries have to develop ways that are right for them in the hope that they will eventually reach positions of greater prosperity and join freely in the kind of market systems that we have been advocating.
	The monitoring of trade policies has shown that such policies can impact very differently on men and women, but currently nearly all the policies are gender-blind. Therefore, we need to ensure that some of those policies really take account of the way that women have to carry double burdens: they are often the primary caretakers and are often the people who not only care for families but also grow the food on which the family lives and, indeed, make some money by selling it.
	Many others have mentioned the issue of literacy. We must remember that, for many, education is still paid for and, as a result, families privilege their sons—they value the education of boys over that of girls. That is another area where we could have influence.
	I want to mention the issue of women and war. While more men are killed in war, women experience rape, sexual exploitation, torture, mutilation and all manner of horrors. Often they are involved in abduction and slavery. They are often left to head households and as sole providers and they remain very vulnerable to attack by armed gangs and militia. That severely restricts women's mobility and can grossly impinge on the household and agricultural production of the community. Of course, it also exacerbates poverty. It is very important to see conflict resolution as part of the poverty alleviation strategy.
	I have two final comments: first, women and AIDS. Women carry additional burdens because of the prevalence of AIDS. Reproductive health is crucial for women and addressing those problems is part of the parcel. Secondly, violence against women is a serious human rights issue the world over, but it should be addressed, particularly in areas where women experience female genital mutilation and other serious abuse. I strongly urge that law is seen as one of the strategies. We should see law as part of the armoury in challenging poverty the world over.

Lord Hunt of Chesterton: My Lords, I welcome the debate in a critical year in which the world is focusing on saving and improving the lives of hundreds of millions of people in developing countries. A considerable success of this Government is that politicians of all parties in the UK now accept that it is in the interests of the whole world to eliminate poverty and ill health everywhere. In our global village, global health, tourism, trade and security are interdependent. Development, as other noble Lords have commented, also benefits the quality of human life; it leads to less social violence, more gender equality, democracy, culture, education and international understanding.
	As the recent Sachs report to the Millennium Commission has emphasised, there are many different ways in which programmes of improvement can operate. A wide range of different contributions are needed and countries use quite different approaches with success in quite different ways.
	I compliment my noble friend Lady Whitaker on her introduction, but I would like to moderate her enthusiasm on two points. Development is not just a matter of economics. Economists have not always been particularly effective in identifying funding or even in understanding many of the issues of development. They are not universally successful in running businesses either.
	The great breakthroughs in development have come from many types of expertise. So I particularly welcome the fact that DfID has seen that it needs to have a wider interdisciplinary approach which is advocated in the Sachs report. Recently, the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Mitchell, welcomed the appointment of a chief scientist in DfID.
	My other point in connection with my noble friend's enthusiasm is that the Government need to ensure that all of their departments and agencies should contribute to collaborative development projects. DfID is taking a lead but it needs to lead with all the other departments as well. Much more could be done in that direction, but DfID is reluctant to spend its budget through other departments—the usual Whitehall game. Surely it should also have the role of co-ordinating other departments' purchases, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, and of encouraging them in their wide international roles and responsibilities.
	The Meteorological Office, of which I was proud to be the head for five and a half years, provides specialist advice and training in developing countries, like other government agencies. The improved weather services that result are essential to warnings of storms, floods, droughts, improved agriculture, safety for fishermen and civil aviation, which, of course, benefits tourism worldwide.
	I particularly commend the Leader of the Opposition on his recent remarks. He has emphasised the need for such multilateral networks involving organisations in the UK and those in other countries. I have been hearing about very important networks developed with hospitals and universities in the UK; they are developing effective operational collaboration on a day-to-day basis. In terms of weather forecasts, if one collaborating organisation does not produce a weather forecast on a Monday morning it will receive a telephone call.
	The advantage of such activities is that they can be carefully monitored and developed and they can involve many more people in the UK than the rather few and sparse members of DfID, which is a very economical and tightly run organisation. In that department they have to rely on providing large grants distributed to central governments and international agencies in the developing world. Sometimes there is not much control and, as I understand Mr Brown found in his visit to Kenya, the funds are not even being spent.
	In my role as the UK permanent representative in the World Meteorological Organisation—a United Nations body—and as chair of an NGO, ACOPS, I know that UN agencies can be extremely good and great forces for good, but sometimes they need very careful monitoring to focus on their deliverables and to avoid malpractice. I refer noble Lords to the fairly strong debate held in this House on 18 January and to the debate, which will probably be equally strong, that is to be held on 3 February.
	One of the greatest threats to development comes from natural disasters. More than 80 per cent of the economy of some central American states was destroyed by hurricanes, including the famous Hurricane Mitch in the 1990s. By contrast, the local economies of the United States and Japan are not destroyed by the frequent natural disasters that affect other countries. That is because they have engineering and preventive measures, warning systems and carry out very fast remedial measures following disasters.
	We should greatly welcome the decision of the United Nations conference on natural disasters, held last week, in which DfID represented the UK and which the Prime Minister mentioned in his speech on 10 January. It was held in Kobe. Unlike the previous conference in 1994, to which I was a representative, I understand that the conference recommended that, even with trans-boundary hazards, early warnings are needed, including for tsunamis. To achieve that goal will require overcoming many bureaucratic and political obstacles, as I have seen. I hope that the Minister will explain how the UK will work to implement that vital recommendation. It would help many totally preventable disasters in the future, such as the flooding in Mozambique a few years ago and the recent tsunami disaster.
	We should also note that climate change makes such communities more vulnerable. Despite threats from the United States that it might have been removing any such consideration from the final resolution of the Kobe conference, could the Minister confirm that that point was agreed by the conference?

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, I add my very warm thanks to my noble friend Lady Whitaker for tabling this debate, which I believe is of global importance. Our interdependent world is in need of urgent change, which requires leadership and consistent action by wealthy countries working together in partnership with each other and in partnership with developing countries. I am, of course, delighted that this Government are providing leadership and that this country is on track to meet the UN target of 0.7 per cent of national income to be spent on aid. I celebrate the fact that they are working in partnership and not in isolation.
	I am slightly concerned about statements that the Conservative Party would wish unilaterally to withdraw the UK's contribution to the EU's aid programme. As we learnt from the debate last Thursday, European development aid has greatly improved and in some areas has made remarkable achievements; indeed the European Commission has today launched a new consultation document on the future development of policy. I would draw particular attention to the achievement of the EU peace facility for Africa, which backs the operations of the African Union, helping to bring much needed stability to the region.
	I want to touch on long-term action to tackle failing states and the role of women. Those who suffer most when a state is unable or unwilling to carry out its basic functions are poor people. They suffer through low living standards, crumbling infrastructure, the spread of disease, limited access to basic services and pervasive insecurity. The World Bank estimates that 500 million people live in such countries. Instability in one country can spill over to its neighbours and to the whole region, as can refugees, disease and crime, as we have seen in Afghanistan and Sudan. Promoting more effective states is, therefore, a moral imperative, as well as being in our common interest.
	The challenge is to produce capable states in which peace and security are guaranteed over a sustained period. Without adequate institutions and good governance there is seldom peace; without peace there can be no long-term development and growth. A prerequisite for growth is the implementation of policies that promote education and health, that protect the rights of minority communities, strengthen the capacity of civil society, and take action against corruption. Through its partnership fund, the Department for International Development is providing invaluable assistance in all these areas. As the noble Lord, Lord Brett, pointed out, the trade unions are also providing essential assistance in this area.
	The British Council, the Westminster Foundation for Democracy and the BBC World Service also have very important contributions to make in helping to build effective and competent institutions and nurturing good governance. I should be grateful for an assurance from my noble friend the Minister that the Government will continue to provide the necessary support to these important institutions.
	More and more women in developing countries are engaging in their systems of governance. They are assisted by organisations such as AWEPA—European Parliamentarians for Africa—which has always made the attainment of gender equality at all levels of political decision-making one of its key aims. It has made great progress. The first president of the Pan-African Parliament of the African Union is a woman; 48.8 per cent of Rwanda's MPs are women; and in Mozambique, Namibia and South Africa, women occupy over 25 per cent of national parliamentary seats. Fine role models—but that is not enough, hence the need for the Third millennium development goal that seeks to,
	"promote gender equality and empower women".
	Throughout the world, women are primary carers in their families and communities, but they are also central to their local economies—90 per cent of agricultural production in Africa is carried out by women. Women have always done unpaid work, but where governments have supported the small-scale, localised co-operative and small business approach, this has resulted in effective local marketing of produce. Women's contribution to growth is, of course, enhanced by asset formation. In Birkina Faso, for example, women have more secure land rights than in other African countries and farmers' productivity there is significantly higher than in neighbouring states.
	One extraordinary woman who has made a great difference to the lives of thousands is Dr Wangari Maathai, founder of the Green Belt Movement and the first African woman to win the Nobel Peace Prize. As my noble friend Lord Griffith said, she and thousands of others in Kenya and all over east Africa have been empowered by the planting of trees. These women have planted more than 20 million trees on farms, in schools and in Church grounds in order to conserve the environment. In doing so, they have helped themselves and their families. By stemming the problem of deforestation and desertification through the planting of trees, women have become economically productive, harvesting fruit and timber and providing stability in the home. Dr Maathai has understood for many years that if you enable a woman to lift herself out of poverty, she will take her family with her. That is a great outcome by any measurement.
	Action to reduce poverty is the world's greatest challenge. It is a matter of justice for the poor, but also an imperative for a secure world in which the richest and the poorest nations are interdependent. Britain holds a special global responsibility through its presidencies of the G8 and the European Union. We all have a vested interest in their success. In the words of the South African constitution,
	"the world belongs to all who live in it".

Lord Brennan: My Lords, nations have characters. It is in the character of our nation that it should give help to developing countries, especially the poorest. This Government have pursued a sustained and vigorous development aid programme. That reflects our national character. The public response to the tsunami appeal was incredible. That reflects our national character. This coalition of government policy and public sentiment is fortuitous.
	The Government are exercising leadership among the developing nations to reduce poverty. This coalition should fortify our Government to be ever more determined in this year's negotiations to reduce poverty in two particular ways. The first is funding. We should say "yes" to debt relief if the consequent saving to each country is properly used; and say "yes" to changes in world trade if that is done with sophistication and justice.
	But most important of all, in the short-term we should say "yes" to achieving our promise to reach the millennium development goals. In 2000, we promised the poor that we would do that. In 2005, we are expected at the United Nations in September to tell them what progress we have made. We promised that by 2015 there would have been significant progress. The only realistic policy that has been put forward to achieve such goals— additional as they are to other aid programmes and commitments—is the international finance facility proposed by the Chancellor two years ago.
	Apart from a scheme from France to do with an international taxation system, it is the only way put forward to honour the promise. In those circumstances it is pertinent to ask any country that does not agree with this scheme: what is your alternative? If the alternative is inaction or prevarication, we should say "no". If the promise is made between adults and broken that would be dishonourable. A promise made by rich adults to poor children that is broken is unforgivable. This policy deserves all-party and national support. I hope it receives that throughout 2005.
	The second leadership issue for the Government is the management of aid. The time has passed to give money liberally to the governments of the poorest countries. It is past—over. From now on, you get the money against results-based analysis. Capacity building is not an end objective, it is the process through which you reach that end.
	I invite the Government to pursue three ways of better managing aid. First, either by country—for example, Sri Lanka after the tsunami—or by sector education, to create international development trusts which involve governments, NGOs and governments of the poorest countries. The purpose of such trusts is to make sure that that money is spent the way it should be. Why not? Which government would put their own importance above the more important objective?
	Secondly, there should be much more emphasis on the funding of NGOs and faith-based organisations giving local help. That is where poverty is best alleviated. Lastly, there are local schemes. In any village or small town of any poor country, to which many of us have been, they want to eat, they want to have their health looked after and they hope to have basic—and I mean basic—education to make tomorrow a better day. It is bottom-up—people to people.
	Those three methods for the better management of aid are a very important objective. This year—2005—is an important year. It is a decision year. I invite the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, whom I thank for initiating this debate, to have another one in the autumn to take account of what we have done or failed to do this year. We have the resources; our Government and our nation have the political and national will. Others should join us.

Lord Jordan: My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend Lady Whitaker for initiating this debate. Yes, 2005 could prove to be a watershed in the fight against poverty in the developing world. The decisions taken this year by leaders of the developed nations on this issue will be a measure of their determination to tackle the world's greatest injustice. Britain has taken a significant lead on this vital matter. The initiatives taken by the Prime Minister, the Chancellor and the Department for International Development, especially those that affect Africa, can have far-reaching beneficial consequences.
	When, in September 2000, governments around the world signed up to the eight millennium goals, the new century seemed to offer the real promise of a breakthrough in ending the poverty and suffering of millions of people. But in September of this year, those same governments will have to conclude that, on present trends, the millennium goals will not be met. There has been progress but, when it is set against the enormity of the work still to be done, in the business of moving the mountain of world poverty we are still digging in the foothills.
	The appalling statistics on world poverty must throw down the gauntlet to world leaders at this year's millennium review and provoke them to show more commitment and determination to honour the promises that they made five years ago. Undoubtedly, the serious reversals in the fight against poverty in Africa will rightly overshadow the millennium review's work.
	The seriousness of the situation on that continent cannot be overstated. The Prime Minister's Commission for Africa initiative will provide a much-needed focus and a springboard for the resolution of some of the continent's many and massive problems. On current trends, poverty will not only not be halved on that continent by 2015, it will have increased by 86 million. Because of the ravages of AIDS, the continent's clock on life expectancy has been turned back.
	The main factor causing the failure to meet the millennium targets is lack of resources. The failure to fulfil the financial promises made at Monterey and Johannesburg means that now all developed countries must commit to meeting the 0.7 per cent of GDP by 2015. Five countries have already reached the target, and Britain is among a group of nations committed to reaching it. International pressure must now be brought to bear on those countries that can and should pull their weight on this issue.
	Gordon Brown's initiative on financing for development is an important means of increasing aid and eliminating debt to achieve the millennium goals. America would do well to recognise the degree of self-interest that it has in backing that proposal to the full. But whether it is aid or debt relief, the one condition that must be observed is the transparency of seeing that it is transformed into more schools and hospitals and invested in job creation.
	Countries should own and dictate the way that their poverty reduction strategies are drawn up and delivered, but they have an obligation to donors and the people of their country to show that what the aid was intended to achieve is being delivered. Never again must the system be as weak as when Nigeria was being given 1 billion dollars in aid while its President Abacha and his family were robbing the people of that country of 3 billion to 4 billion dollars.
	The murderous human consequences of conflicts such as those that have ravaged some African countries are tragically clear, but the legacy for survivors is a guarantee of poverty. The present UN peacekeeping force is a sad shadow of what is required to restore stability in conflict-ridden states. No nation should have the right to an autonomy that permits its government to slaughter its own people or do nothing while its people are slaughtering each other. The UN should not have the right or excuse to stand aside.
	If a small proportion of the 900 billion dollars that the world's nations spend on arming themselves was spent on building a highly trained, properly equipped UN peacekeeping force with a clear authority to stop murder, it would be a significant contribution towards conflict resolution and a major step forward in the fight against poverty.
	If we are looking for an effective weapon to tackle poverty, governments and international agencies should increase the involvement of trade unions and non-governmental organisations. They comprise men and women who are present and know what is really happening at the point of crisis—the place where solutions must be delivered. Trade unions, in particular, see decent work of the kind championed by the International Labour Organisation as being at the heart of poverty elimination. This year, through Britain's role in chairing both the G8 and the European Community, the Prime Minister and others have a unique opportunity to challenge the conscience of the developed nations and to urge them to think and act radically on aid and debt relief. In doing so, Britain will positively and decisively influence the course of the world's struggle to eliminate world poverty.

Lord Rea: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Jordan for that cogent and stirring speech. My noble friend Lady Whitaker has chosen the right timing for this debate. As she and others reminded us, three very important statements on relieving world poverty have just been published. There is the Chancellor of the Exchequer's speech in Edinburgh on 6 January and his subsequent remarks in Africa; there is the OECD report on development assistance; and, last but not least, Jeffrey Sachs's UN report on the progress, or should we say lack of progress, towards meeting the millennium development goals. At the same time, the NGO consortium, Make Poverty History, has launched its campaign.
	The remarkable fact is that they are all singing from more or less the same hymn sheet. To be effective, the attack on world poverty, especially in sub-Saharan Africa, must move simultaneously on three fronts. Many other noble Lords have described these; they are: effective—I stress that word—aid for infrastructure building; debt cancellation; and fair trade, so well discussed by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, and my noble friend Lord Desai.
	But these are measures that those in the development field have been advocating for decades. It is excellent that these policies are now being advocated from positions of influence, but there is still more rhetoric than action, compelling though some of the rhetoric is. For that reason, I very much hope that the Chancellor and the Prime Minister will use all their persuasive skills at the forthcoming G8 meetings and at the EU summit when we take over the presidency. The method advocated by my noble friend Lord Desai to persuade other countries to our point of view may need some refinement. It would not be helpful to lock them up in a room and refuse to give them the key until they have agreed—but I understand precisely what he was getting at.
	As many noble Lords have said, Gordon Brown is now calling for a new Marshall plan for the developing world. I can remember when, 20 years ago in your Lordships' House, my late friend Lord John Hatch, a lifelong friend of Africa, called for a Marshall plan for Africa. But a different government were then in power and those who knew him will remember that John Hatch lacked the diplomatic approach. He was the only noble Lord that I can remember who provoked a Motion that, "The noble Lord be no longer heard", when he once harried a Minister in true Paxman style.
	It is almost impossible to do justice to the millennium project report—the Sachs report from the United Nations—in a short speech, but I should like to mention two of the many important points made in the overview of the report which has been published. It highlights the strong relationship between poverty and what it calls "adverse income shocks" on the onset of conflict. The converse is also true—that the risk of violent civil conflict declines steadily as national incomes increase. Conflict resolution therefore obviously has to be a top priority, because development cannot occur where civil society is disrupted.
	Under the heading "Escaping the poverty trap", the report states that investment in human capital,
	"is helped by a voluntary reduction in fertility, which promotes greater investments in the health, nutrition, and education of each child. We thus strongly support programs that promote sexual and reproductive health and rights, including voluntary family planning. Critical to overall success in economic growth and poverty reduction, they can help countries meet the Goals, freeing them from the poverty trap and their dependence on aid".
	My noble friend will need no reminder of how important that aspect of development assistance is within the overall strategy. I hope that funds for this sector will be maintained and, if possible, increased. Some would like population matters to be considered as a ninth goal for the millennium.
	On a different tack, I draw my noble friend's attention to a small but highly important organisation, the Drugs for Neglected Diseases Initiative. It is a Swiss-based multinational foundation. This consortium promotes research and development of drugs for diseases that predominantly affect millions of poor people in the developing world—tropical diseases such as sleeping sickness or trypanosomiasis, Chagas's disease and Kala-Azar, as well as TB and malaria. It is not profitable for big multinational pharmaceutical companies to develop new drugs for those diseases, because poor people in the developing world who suffer from them cannot afford such drugs.
	The DNDI uses innovative methods of harnessing resources, including public/private partnerships, to develop the drugs. It has a draw-down fund which needs around 150 million dollars a year in replenishment. In a few years, it has identified around 50 promising new compounds, but needs more support. If a meeting is not already in train, I suggest that my noble friend or one of his senior officials meets a representative of the DNDI to discuss future collaboration. That could well be very beneficial to the poorest people in the world.

Baroness Northover: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, for introducing this important debate in such a wide-ranging and, as ever, well informed way. The humanitarian case for assisting the poorest countries is overwhelming but, as others have said, we should also recognise that we all benefit from the stability and security that prosperity fosters.
	This indeed is a key year, as the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, said. The UK will be chairing the G8 Summit and holding the EU presidency, and it looks as though in addition we will have a general election. The Prime Minister says that he intends to put international development at the top of the agenda, which would surely be extremely welcome.
	The Government have increased their commitment to international development, which is also welcome. Under recent Conservative governments, expenditure slowly declined, and at first Labour continued that trend when it came into office. In 1980 the percentage of GNI spent on aid was 0.34 per cent, declining by the 1997 general election to 0.26 per cent. In 1998 under Labour, it fell again to its lowest level in a generation, 0.24 per cent. No wonder Labour MPs wondered where they were heading. But we now see it rising again, to 0.34 per cent in 2003, and projected to rise above 0.4 per cent in 2006–07. The Chancellor said last year that the Government wished to maintain the rates of growth so that, by 2013, the UK could reach the level of 0.7 per cent promised so long ago. The Irish Government committed during their EU presidency to reach 0.7 per cent, but reneged on that in November. Promises do not necessarily mean delivery, but we welcome the UK Government's present intentions.
	There remains an enormous gap between the money needed to meet the MDGs and that pledged. Which if any of the MDGs does the Minister think might be achievable by 2015? What timetable does he envisage for meeting the others? Gordon Brown has pledged to help to close the gap with his international finance facility, but seems to have secured little support for it. How many countries have now pledged support for the IFF?
	Have the Government got their general approach to the relief of poverty right? A central problem of this Parliament has been the war in Iraq, which has not only taken funds from the poorest countries but, above all, distracted government focus from real need elsewhere. As my noble friend Lord Roberts indicated, the decision to go into Iraq has overshadowed everything else that the Government have done internationally. It seems from the Foreign Secretary's remarks in relation to Iran that the UK may have learnt its lesson but, as the Minister will know, the war in Iraq is seen in many parts of the world as removing much of the UK's moral authority to speak out on world issues. Bridges have to be built and maybe, if we now see a great concentration on international development, they will be. We await the results and the follow-up from the Africa commission with enormous interest.
	What has been neglected as a result of the concentration on Iraq? Afghanistan, where there was indeed terrorism and about which there was international support for the overthrow of the Taliban, was certainly neglected. President Karzai appeals for international help to rebuild his country, and the world generally looks elsewhere and opium production soars. Money has been taken away from the Caribbean and south American countries, risking that those areas too become a route for drugs coming to the UK. It has been difficult too, in these circumstances, for the UK to contribute to a resolution of the Israel/Palestine conflict, even though it ought to be a very high priority for helping to stabilise world order and the reduction of poverty in the area.
	Since Christmas, however, the world seems to have focused on the tsunami rather than Iraq. As other noble Lords have said, we have seen the incredibly generous response to the tsunami appeal. It is surely a challenge to engage public opinion to help to tackle intractable and growing problems around the world in a similar way. On the tsunami, what if anything remains in DfID's emergency coffers? What contingency plans might there be should we face another disaster? What risk assessment has been made of possible further earthquakes along the tectonic plate now damaged by the earthquake off Indonesia?
	Can the Minister tell us about reconstruction plans in areas affected by the tsunami? In the light of this debate in particular, how gender-sensitive has DfID been in providing aid? For example, are women as well as men being put on the title deeds of new houses? We hear that that is not being done. As the noble Baroness, Lady Flather, pointed out, women are the poorest people and are especially vulnerable in such situations. Should DfID not be alive to that? I hope that it has been. The noble Baronesses, Lady Kennedy, Lady Massey, Lady D'Souza, Lady Flather and Lady Royall, all rightly pointed out how important it is to focus on women and girls. It is welcome to hear their passionate advocacy of that cause, which needs to run right through DfID's policies.
	As the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, and the right reverend Prelate said, we must also look from today's tsunami crisis to even more profound problems. The AIDS pandemic, to which others have referred, is surely the most major crisis facing the world today. The HIV/AIDS pandemic is tearing apart much of sub-Saharan Africa and other regions of the developing world. The statistics are appalling: at least 42 million people are living with HIV/AIDS, as are over 3 million children under the age of 15; and 14 million children under the age of 15 have been orphaned as a result of AIDS. The total number of children orphaned is forecast to more than double by 2010. As we have heard, HIV/AIDS destroys families, communities and nations. Young people, especially girls, are most at risk from the disease. Girls are the first to be taken out of schooling to look after sick relatives.
	Surely there should be no higher priority on the international agenda than tackling HIV/AIDS. AIDS plays its part in pulling people out of poverty, but clearly the noble Lords, Lord Desai and Lord Hylton, and others are right to say that economic growth, promoted through trade, is the key factor. Can the Minister say how closely DfID works with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and with the EU external trade commissioner, Peter Mandelson? Trade is pulling the Chinese and Indian economies out of poverty and we need the African nations to follow suit. Their chances are damaged for as long as the EU and the US operate protectionist policies.
	I should like to ask the Minister three questions. Do the Government agree with the Make Poverty History campaign that the projected EU economic partnership agreements are likely to be disastrous for poor communities and that those agreements must be completely rethought? Does the noble Lord agree that water should be removed from the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) and if not, why not? Following the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Desai, what will the Government recommend to the G8 countries regarding debt, to relieve that burden?
	This has been a wide-ranging debate and the number of noble Lords involved once again shows the expertise in this House and their commitment here to this subject. We on these Benches agree with the Government that there is hardly a more important responsibility than lifting the poorest people out of poverty. Where we disagree is on how foreign policy and international development aims have been at odds with each other in delivering a safer, better world. We hope that this year we may see international development win out.

Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, for initiating this important debate. As was discussed in last week's debate on EU Committee reports, security and development are inextricably interlinked. We cannot separate conflict from development when one country in eight is embroiled in civil war. A century ago, most conflicts were between nations and 90 per cent of casualties were soldiers; today, almost all wars are civil, and 90 per cent of victims are civilians.
	The majority of conflicts are in Africa, most notably in Sudan and the Great Lakes region. The conflict countries are those that find it most difficult to establish funding relationships with donors. Poverty fosters war and war impoverishes. A typical civil war leaves a country 15 per cent poorer, with around 30 per cent more people living in absolute poverty. A neighbouring country at war reduces economic growth by about 0.5 per cent each year.
	A World Bank study shows that when income per person doubles, the risk of civil war halves and that for each percentage point that the growth rate rises, the risk of conflict falls by a point. The paradox is that peace and development will not be possible without international financial support, and such support will not be forthcoming until peace is achieved.
	Wars today are more horrific due to the killing power of modern weapons. With the publication of the Control Arms report on Monday and the start of the UN conference on marking and tracing there have been calls from NGOs for Her Majesty's Government to do all they can to implement a global system to track small arms and ammunition. It is easier to trace a suitcase or a genetically modified tomato than a lethal weapon. In a recent massacre in Burundi 150 people were killed. The spent cartridges showed that the ammunition was manufactured in China, Bulgaria and Serbia. But the lack of a tracing system means that it is impossible to prove how that ammunition reached there. Small arms play an enormous role, not only in human rights abuses abroad but also in armed crimes in this country. With 8 million new weapons manufactured every year, can the Minister say whether Her Majesty's Government have any plans to instigate a global small arms tracking system?
	Stability, not conflict, is an essential precursor to development. Regardless of how the individual needs of each country are approached, nothing will be successfully achieved without the political will to do so, both in the donor and developing countries. Here, we welcome the drive shown by Her Majesty's Government to raise the profile in the G8 and the EU, with the caveat that, as Action Aid has stated:
	"the UK Government talks the talk on international development but the . . . (UN Millennium Project report) . . . shows that they've yet to walk the walk ".
	Two thirds of developing countries are not on target to meet their millennium development goals—a shocking statistic. In 2003, to meet the MDG water targets, we needed to deliver clean water to 350,000 and sanitation to 450,000 people per day until December 2014. The cost of that is equal to 180 billion dollars per year on all water issues, while Her Majesty's Government were spending only 80 billion dollars. Water is a universally neglected issue. At the weekend 2,000 people were displaced and there were numerous deaths as Kenyan tribes clashed over water rights. In the light of that, what is Her Majesty's Government's response to criticism by NGOs of the EU call for water supply to be included in the General Agreement on Trade in Services?
	Clean water and sanitation, along with basic education, are vital to the good health of a nation. According to the latest report from the Grow Up Free From Poverty Coalition, 80 million mothers and children will die unnecessarily over the next 12 years, unless the current health development model, diverting funds from primary healthcare to narrower projects focused on cost savings, is changed and more resources made available. My noble friend Lady Flather pointed out that women's health in developing countries is normally twice as bad as that of men. At the current pace, sub-Saharan Africa will not reduce child mortality by two thirds until 150 years beyond the 2015 deadline. That mortality is heavily linked with HIV/AIDS and secondary infections. Some 6,500 Africans die from AIDS each day. What steps are the Government taking to protect HIV-orphaned children from the hell of child sex tourism?
	It is clear that greater international political will is required if we are to make progress in the war on poverty. It is imperative that we ensure that the UK and other countries stick to fulfilling their pledges. Yesterday, a UN spokesman pointed out that only one-third of the aid money pledged worldwide for tsunami relief had been delivered.
	We support as fast a move as possible to fulfil the UK's commitment to 0.7 per cent of GDP to the aid budget. What discussions are Her Majesty's Government having with those countries significantly behind with this goal, such as the US? But more money is useless unless it is efficiently spent and targeted where needed most—on programmes to help the world's poorest—not just to line the pockets of corrupt officials. It is essential that developing countries promote and adhere to practices of transparency and good governance and crack down on corruption.
	One glaring example is Zimbabwe, which is at breaking point due to the disastrous policies of the Mugabe regime. What action are Her Majesty's Government taking to persuade other countries, NePAD and the Africa Commission to use their influence to help counter corruption and human rights violations in Zimbabwe?
	While considerable progress has been made through negotiations towards freer trade in recent years, notably the Geneva agreement last July, we need to ensure that trade is fairer too. We must not make the mistake of supposing that developing economies can achieve in a day what has, in the majority of cases, taken richer countries centuries to achieve.
	Therefore, we must give developing countries a helping hand by tearing down the trade barriers faster from our side than they do. Free trade should be fairer and fair trade should be freer. My noble friend Lord Eden gave the example of the problems with the Sri Lankan garment trade. He also mentioned his son and stepson's charity, Friends of the South. I have been told by friends in Sri Lanka what wonderful work that charity is doing.
	We must also recognise that the technical capacity of richer nations gives us a great advantage over poorer nations in trade negotiations. That is why a Conservative government, as well as pushing for the fundamentals of free and fair trade, would take a lead in establishing and financing an advocacy fund to give developing countries access to the advice and expertise that they need to fight their corner at the negotiating table.
	When 1.1 billion people in extreme poverty live in a permanent state of emergency and 850 million suffer through hunger, the world's governments and industry seem to be operating at too slow a pace. It is essential that we reassess our approach to aid development. It is by no means a simple question of more funds, although these are important. Stability, management of aid, cutting corruption and, as my noble friend Lord Selsdon said, trade and political will are also essential.

Lord Triesman: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Whitaker for her introduction to the debate, which was genuinely comprehensive and full of knowledge. I also thank all other noble Lords who have participated. It has been a good, knowledgeable, constructive and positive debate on the Government's policy towards poverty reduction in developing countries. It makes me very proud of what this country does and what the Government are doing.
	I am particularly proud when I learn of local generosity. The noble Lord, Lord Roberts, spoke about a concert held in Cardiff that raised £1 million in one evening, which makes a great statement. It is absolutely true that all judgments will and should be about outcomes, as my noble friends Lord Brennan and Lord Griffiths have said. I appreciate the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady D'Souza, about the complexity of all the issues being considered. I had not quite counted on the goat question, and I have no comment to make on it.
	Perhaps I may just say that the idea that all the international work in which we are engaged is so over-shadowed by Iraq that we cannot give proper attention to it has been demonstrated to be nonsense by the quality of the debate today—an ungenerous summary, which I regret.
	A unique opportunity is presented in 2005 to the United Kingdom and the broader international community. It is a year when, as presidents of both the G8 and the European Union, the UK can provide the lead on scaling up the response to global poverty and urging all international donor nations to meet the commitments already set out on aid, trade, debt and the broad-ranging millennium development goals.
	This year has the potential to be a year in which tangible gains are made, and the year in which the wider international community clearly sets out its commitment to meet the millennium development goals by 2015. The Government will be at the heart of that drive.
	The Prime Minister has established a clear set of international development priorities. For the G8, those will be Africa and climate change. He wants the leaders in Gleneagles to be prepared to agree a concrete set of measures for which G8 countries can be held to account. My noble friend Lady Kennedy said that this programme is capable of inspiring young people, and I agree. They are plainly people who understand the millstone of poverty and the great cause of fighting it.
	Our main tasks during the EU presidency will be to take forward the inherited agenda and to represent the EU externally. Our priorities on the development side will again be Africa, the need for the international community to address poverty-related diseases and to press for EC aid to be targeted and focused on those who are most in need. We will also press for a new EU ODA/GNI target to raise the average proportion of gross national income going on aid from across Europe.
	Three major reports issued in 2005 will contribute to shaping these shared agendas for the international development community. First, the United Nations Millennium Project report was published last week. It makes a powerful case that the millennium development goal can be achieved—even in sub-Saharan Africa—provided, as the noble Baroness, Lady D'Souza, said, bold action is taken to ensure that it is achieved.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Northover, asked whether we intend to meet the objectives and, if we do not, which ones do we not intend to meet. We intend to meet the objectives and we will publish an assessment of them in a few weeks.
	Secondly, the report in March of the Commission for Africa, following a wide-ranging consultation across Africa, will be available. The creation of the commission demonstrates the personal commitment of the Prime Minister to use the UK presidencies to make a real difference in Africa. I should also like to express my appreciation for the work done by my right honourable friends the Chancellor, Gordon Brown, and the Secretary of State for International Development, Hilary Benn. However, I would emphasise that of the 17 commissioners more than half are prominent Africans. In that fact, I hope that we will all have confidence in the recommendations that will be made, shared, owned and acted on by partner governments across Africa.
	Thirdly, September this year will see the United Nations Millennium Review Summit in New York, where the UN Secretary-General will present the first formal report on progress made towards the 2015 targets. These are good news stories, but, plainly, a huge amount remains to be done, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa, where on current trends it could take more than a century, as noble Lords have said, to reach some of the targets.
	I share the view of my noble friends Lord Brennan and Lord Jordan that promises have been made at Monterey and Johannesburg, and promises must be met. The IFF is crucial in ensuring that we do. The noble Lord, Lord Astor, asked what discussion we are having with other countries, which is a very important question. These discussions are going on all the time. I hear routine reports on their progress from the Secretary of State for International Development.
	The Prime Minister and the Government are determined to use this unique opportunity in 2005 to help Africa help itself. The challenges faced by sub-Saharan Africa are huge. However, the continent now has a real opportunity to turn itself around by its own will and its own efforts. There will be clear actions which we and other members of the international community will need to take forward in partnership with African governments. As donors, we must show African governments that our aid is dependable and that our policies are coherent.
	To demonstrate this commitment, the UK is focusing particularly on improving opportunities for fairer trade, pressing for further debt relief, working to prevent conflict and its consequences, and tackling HIV/AIDS and other diseases which threaten the capacity of states to build for the future. In addition, we need to increase the volume and predictability of aid flows, and harmonise our approaches to development with those of African states and other donors.
	The debate has focused a good deal on trade. It is a huge issue and one on which I can assure noble Lords all Ministers work closely with one another. Africa attracts less than 1 per cent of all world trade, down from 5 per cent in 1948. Successful development relies on sound economic growth. Oxfam has estimated that an increase of just 1 per cent in Africa's share of world exports could be worth five times as much as the continent's share of aid and debt relief added together. The failure of the World Trade Organisation negotiations in Cancun was a disappointment and it is vital that at the talks in December we reach some form of commitment on scrapping subsidies, removing trade barriers, reforming the EU common agricultural policy, and building up developing country capacity to gain access to global markets. All those points were made persuasively by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, in a powerful statement.
	We believe that an ambitious outcome to the current WTO talks could produce annual global benefits of between 250 and 600 billion dollars, and reduce the number of people living on less than two dollars a day by 144 million. That could finally set developing nations on the path towards being able to earn and trade their own way out of poverty.
	A number of noble Lords asked whether we would pursue this. I can say to my noble friend Lady Whitaker that her point about food security and the springboard for growth coming from trade are fundamental to what we plan to do. Equally, the noble Lords, Lord Eden and Lord Selsdon, and my noble friend Lord Desai all raised similar points. Further, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Eden, and my noble friend Lady Jay on the work of their children in these areas. I always like to hear about industrious families involved in this kind of work.
	My noble friend Lord Desai pointed out that the flow of private capital is crucial for the economies of developing countries. Debt burden must also be tackled. The UK is currently taking the lead on further debt relief, and we are determined to push this agenda with our G8 and EU partners. The heavily indebted poor country initiative has to date delivered around 70 billion dollars in debt relief for 27 of the world's poorest nations, 23 of which are in Africa. Their debt burden has been reduced by an average of around two-thirds. A further 10 eligible countries may also benefit over the next two years, which could lead to an additional 30 billion dollars' worth of debt relief.
	The United Kingdom has already cancelled 100 per cent of its bilateral debt with these countries, and is now undertaking to meet 10 per cent of their debt-servicing payments to the multilateral institutions. That is a signal achievement for the United Kingdom. My noble friend Lord Desai also made a point about debt forgiveness combined with trade. I should like to add to what he said by noting that it is not only the relationship between trade and debt, but also the need to make sure that we do not apply the conditions to trade and debt which led to some of the mistakes that have been made in the past.
	AIDS affects nearly 27 million people in sub-Saharan Africa, where it is the leading cause of death and the greatest threat to eradicating poverty and achieving the millennium development goals. The impact is particularly destructive of the opportunities and potential of the next generation. As my noble friend Lady Kennedy said, it is correct that women bear the greatest burden of this problem. In Malawi, more teachers are dying of AIDS each year than can be trained to fill their places. Even when there are sufficient teachers, children frequently drop out of class to care for sick parents or, when they are orphaned, stop going to school altogether.
	The UK Government strategy for accelerated action on HIV/AIDS promises increased global resources of £1.5 billion over the next three years, which signals a real effort to improve and co-ordinate the international response to the epidemic; stronger political leadership; support for better programmes beyond the health sector; and specific action to support orphans and neglected children. The noble Lord, Lord Astor, asked specifically about that. It is a fixed part of the programme. Moreover, the NGOs play an absolutely central role in this by ensuring that money gets to the right people in the most effective way.
	Preventing both the incidence and impact of conflict is critical since security and good development go hand in hand. African governments have the primary responsibility to avoid conflict and ensure the security of their citizens. But where the state fails to deliver, as we have seen in Darfur and in northern Uganda, as my noble friend Lord Jordan made clear, the international community has a straightforward moral obligation to protect people from harm. My noble friend Lord Parekh made a very similar observation.
	My noble friend Lord Griffiths of Burry Port made a most moving point about Haiti, illustrating the key importance of security and the plain obligation of those sent to fulfil a UN mandate to do so, as well as providing the real and practical help that finally makes all the difference. As the noble Baroness, Lady D'Souza, said, democracy has no substitute. Perhaps I may add, in response to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Llandudno, that in Iraq, which has also been the location of huge conflict, DfID has put some £333 million into specific aid projects over the recent period.
	There is a clear need to focus on the setting of ambitious targets, and this also applies to the volume of aid and how it is delivered. Total UK official development assistance will rise to almost £6.5 billion, or 0.47 per cent of our gross national income, by 2007–08, representing a real terms increase of 140 per cent since 1997. Our aid to sub-Saharan Africa has more than doubled to nearly £720 million over the past seven years and will reach £1.25 billion in 2007–08.
	We have announced our intention and a timetable to reach the UN target of 0.7 per cent. We intend to reach it. The Chancellor's proposed international finance facility, if successful, would lead to the immediate doubling of aid from rich nations, which is judged necessary if the millennium development goals are to be met. I welcome the approval of my noble friend Lady Jay for the programme. She went on to say that aid levels are vital, along with proper safeguards for governance and the use of anti-corruption measures. Those points were also made by other noble Lords, underlying their absolute importance.
	I have focused on Africa, but I shall leave the continent for a moment. The year could not have started with a more sombre event. Just before the end of last year an earthquake in the Indian Ocean produced a huge tsunami. The subsequent tragedy has reminded us all of the horrifying power of natural events and their impact on all those caught in their wake. It has also underlined the particular vulnerability of the world's poorest people living in the world's poorest countries. However, the international and public response has been overwhelming.
	The UK's current priority is to fund immediate emergency relief operations and it has already allocated £75 million to the humanitarian response. Let me stress, in response to the question put to me by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwell, that none of this funding has been reallocated from existing development programmes. It is freestanding aid. Recovery from the tsunami will take many years, and as well as helping to fund the emergency stage, we must recognise that we will be contributing for a long time to come. The trade component is vital to recovery and we are sensitive to that point.
	Many lessons need to be learnt from this tragedy, including the whole issue of seeking to predict such events. My noble friend Lord Hunt of Chesterton asked several questions on these issues, and I shall write to him in detail about the Kobe discussions. However, donor countries and the nations affected have agreed with the UN that they should begin work now on an early warning system in the Indian Ocean to prevent such widespread disruption and loss of life in the future. Given its great technical capacity, Japan will be playing a significant role. Climate change is also a vital part of the entire programme.
	Many questions have been raised in the debate and I shall endeavour to deal with a few of them but answer in writing those that I miss. I fully agree with the noble Lord, Lord Eden, and the noble Baroness, Lady Flather, about the innovations made in the Indian banking system. No doubt, there are lessons to be learnt.
	On the points made by my noble friend Lady Jay, the United Kingdom anti-bribery and corruption procedures are and will remain among the toughest in the world. The Export Credit Guarantee Department revised its anti-bribery and corruption procedures in December 2004 and agreement was reached on 13 January stressing its commitment to supporting UK exporters, while ensuring that robust measures are applied in all cases.
	The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, asked about India's prospects in arriving at its millennium development goals. I will write to him on those because an extensive answer could be given. The issue of caste is fundamental. It is an essential element in persistent poverty and 200 million people are adversely affected. DfID has several programmes specifically targeted on that question. If it is helpful, I will write in detail about them rather than give them short shrift. I am afraid to say to my noble friend Lord Parekh that I do not believe that the Tobin tax is likely to be one of the answers. There are too many technical and feasibility problems in achieving it.
	Many points have been made about the role of women. The United Kingdom is investing £1.4 billion in education in the developing world. I say immediately that it is intended that that should be spent equally between men and women, which by definition will make a considerable difference to the amount being spent on women. We want to ensure that girls have exactly the same opportunities as boys; that they enjoy equal education opportunities; that they are protected from conflicts and violence; that they have access to health provision, water and sanitation; that they are protected from social exclusion; and that they are given every opportunity to avoid the perils of HIV and AIDS.
	The millennium development goals in respect of girls are fundamental to our work. In response to my noble friend Lady Massey, there are examples from Yemen, Nepal and 25 other countries in a list provided to me. Specific programmes have been provided there in order to deal with the problems experienced by girls. I will write to my noble friend on that matter.
	My noble friend Lord Brett—I am sorry, he is on the Cross Benches now but I hope he will not mind my addressing him as a noble friend, a former trade union general secretary—made the point about the role of trade unions as specialised organisations and their civil society role. I wholly agree with him. DfID provides just under £0.5 million to United Kingdom trade union organisations through the TUC and the DfID civil society challenge fund also is a leading fund in trying to ensure that resources and programmes are being made available for trade unions.
	I want to respond in due course to some of the points on fragile states. However, I say now to my noble friend Lady Royall that she has the assurance she sought. The role of women and the greater part they play as role models in avoidance and conflict resolution is part of DfID's programme and part of its expenditure.
	I said that I would write to other noble Lords but I want to add one point now in relation to the international finance facility for immunisation raised by my noble friend Lord Rea. Today the United Kingdom can announce that it proposes to pledge to the international finance facility for immunisation 1.8 billion United States dollars over 15 years. Through front-loading, that will allow 1.4 billion dollars to be spent over 10 years to deal with some of the diseases to which he rightly drew our attention.
	That brings me to the concluding comment. We are clear that we are not working alone on our agenda and my noble friend Lady Whitaker said that it is in our hands. The Make Poverty History alliance of charities, trade unions, campaigning groups and celebrities has come together to demand that rich countries increase aid; that they make it work better for poor people; that we cancel world debt; and that we change the rules of world trade so that they favour the interests of the poor. It is a great commitment and a great contribution.
	I give this undertaking. My noble friend Lady Amos, who is in Davos today with the Prime Minister, will study the text of our debate. We will look at proposals, including the notion of the international development trust which was raised, and we will look at all other proposals which might add to the armoury we can deploy in this great fight. That is the best way to respond to a debate of this importance. I hope that noble Lords will feel that not only this debate but the work we intend to carry forward on that kind of basis will be rewarding in the most profound way.

Baroness Whitaker: My Lords, another important debate is waiting in the wings. I simply thank all noble Lords who have taken part in such a high-calibre and inspiring debate, not forgetting the mention of my fellow Nottinghamian, Jesse Boot. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

House of Lords Reform

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: rose to call attention to the report of the Labour Peers' Working Group on reform of the powers, procedures and conventions of the House of Lords; and to move for Papers.
	My Lords, it was a great honour to have been asked to chair the Working Group of Labour Peers and to open this debate today. I begin by paying tribute to the members of the working group, its advisers and secretariat, who did such a wonderful, hard-working job and supported me throughout the preparation and publication of the report.
	I am delighted that so many distinguished Members of your Lordships' House are taking part in the debate. It has one clear aim: to discuss how we can improve the contribution of this House to the nation's Parliament. In seven years' membership of your Lordships' House, both as a Minister and as a Back-Bencher, I have seen at first hand the work of this House in complementing the House of Commons in holding individual Ministers to account and in improving legislation—even some of my own.
	I have no doubt about the value of this place as a revising Chamber. Nor do I doubt the contribution made by so many Members of this House to public life in this country. But we cannot be complacent. Not all our work is of the highest quality and our reliance on voluntary constraints and informal and ever-moveable limits on the use of our powers is surely unsustainable.
	This is not the first report that has ever been written on Lords reform and I suspect that it will not be the last. Indeed, one of the most pleasant of the working group's tasks was to plough through some of the many reports written on Lords reform over a century or so. We started with the Bryce conference of 1918. Viscount Bryce and his 31 fellow parliamentarians did not get as far as they would have liked, but I am sure that if he were here today, he would recognise many of the arguments that will be deployed in our debate.
	Moving on 50 years, the 1968 White Paper was a remarkable piece of work and supported by many Members of your Lordships' House. Indeed, the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, who I see is in his place, spoke in the debate on the 1968 White Paper proposals and broadly supported them. Alas, the unholy alliance between Enoch Powell and Michael Foot did for the legislation.
	Thirty years on, we had the Royal Commission on Lords reform. That report was the most substantive ever written on the subject and it is a delight to see the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, speaking in our debate today. Despite his efforts and those of many other would-be reformers in the past 100 years, progress can at best be described as "steady as you go".
	We have of course seen some changes. The absolute veto has been replaced by delaying powers; life Peers have been introduced; women Members have been introduced; and the right of most hereditary Peers to sit and vote in the House has been removed. But more, much more, remains to be done.
	Inevitably, much of the current debate on membership has been about composition and whether Members should be elected. Consensus on that remains as elusive as ever. This is hardly surprising given the likely impact that significant changes to the composition of the House is likely to have on the position of the House of Commons. It certainly suggests to me—and, I think, to the working group—that decisions on composition are best made when there is clarity about the role and functions of the second Chamber.
	I make no apology for the terms of reference, which are quite intentionally focused on powers, conventions and procedures. Our report is not the longest that has ever been written on Lords reform, but it covers a great deal of ground and I shall be able to concentrate on only one or two aspects.
	Two key themes run through the report. For many years the Lords has recognised the pre-eminence of the Commons and relied upon informal constraints to govern its relationship with the elected Chamber. But this is a voluntary decision. Conventions are not coded in legislation or standing orders; they can be ignored at any time the House decides—and in recent years the House has so decided. It has pushed at the limits of the convention that it must consider the Government's business without unreasonable delay; it has broken new ground in annulling statutory instruments; it has resurrected a method of challenging the Government unknown for nearly a century; and the House has seen threats to the legislative programme.
	No doubt some noble Lords will argue the merits of each of those individual actions today. That is fair enough—but can noble Lords deny that they are illustrative of a more assertive House? As my noble friend Lord Carter has written:
	"the House can operate only if all its members observe the conventions . . . The delivery of the government's programme of legislation in a House where the government are in a minority depends entirely upon the co-operation of the opposition parties and the observance of the conventions of the House by all its members".
	The working group concluded that the second Chamber needs to operate within clear and transparent rules, achieved through a combination of statutory changes, agreement between this House and the Commons and procedural decisions of this House. Far from undermining the role of this place, we believe that the House is likely to have greater influence and satisfaction if it is confident in the use of its powers and procedures.
	So we make a series of recommendations: an overall time limit for legislation to go through Parliament; a time limit for the second Chamber to consider a Bill; reaffirmation of the importance of the current delaying power; reconciliation machinery to try to resolve disagreements between the Lords and the Commons; the absolute power on secondary legislation to be replaced by a delaying power; and that Bills starting in the Lords should be subject to the Parliament Acts.
	Let me expand on one or two of those points. We propose a time limit for the second Chamber to consider a Bill. There is no question that we should have enough time to consider a Bill properly, but it is equally wrong that a Bill or a legislative programme can potentially be in jeopardy because some Peers, within the rules of the House, can threaten to spend endless time debating a particular Bill. Our aim would be to set a reasonable time limit which reflects current experience with Bills in the Lords. If it was an exceptionally long Bill, or if the Government brought forward many amendments at a late stage, the limit could be extended.
	A time limit would impose a discipline on all sides, including the Government—let me stress that—to deal with legislation efficiently. I would not care to be in the shoes of a Minister coming to the Floor of the House to ask for an extension of the time limit because 200 extra amendments had been put down at a late stage in a Bill's proceedings.
	I turn now to the issue of Parliament Act delays. The ability to delay legislation is the key power of the House of Lords. I believe that the central purpose of those Acts remains as valid as ever. Herbert Morrison, the Leader of the Commons, at Second Reading of the Parliament Bill of 1947, said:
	"The Lords are, in our view, entitled to ask that the Commons should be required to give time and consideration to the Amendments which they propose to Commons Bills".
	He went on to say that,
	"if the position were that the Lords sent their Amendments to the Commons, but the Commons could indifferently ignore them and pass the Bill into law without further ado, then the Lords would be entitled to say that there was no guarantee that any serious consideration would be given to their Amendments, and that we might as well resort to single-chamber Government".—[Official Report, Commons, 10/11/47; col. 38.]
	Amen to that. The Acts have been in operation for many years and have met the test set by Herbert Morrison. We believe that this principle should be carried forward into any new Parliament Acts.
	But anyone reading the Parliament Acts would, I think, agree that the delaying powers are fairly dense, complex and difficult to understand. We believe that a new Act would enable a much clearer understanding of the provisions while maintaining an appropriate period of delay.
	Alongside the Parliament Acts, we think it is important to codify the conventions. Of course, the most important of these is Salisbury/Addison. Its practical effect is that the Lords will not assert its right to vote against a manifesto Bill at Second or Third Reading or pass a wrecking amendment. This convention is so important that there ought to be no doubt or ambiguity about its application in all circumstances, and we make proposals for codification of the conventions. We would prefer an agreement between the major parties in the House rather than legislation, but legislation must be kept as an option in reserve.
	Getting the Parliament Acts and the conventions sorted is, of course, important, but so, too, is the scrutiny of legislation, which, after all, goes to the heart of what this Chamber is all about. We do a fairly good job, but we could do better. Some of the debates that we have on legislation are riveting and attract a large number of speakers and attendance, but we spend too much time discussing minor amendments to elicit factual and technical information from Ministers. There is an awful lot of repetition. Amendments to Bills introduced in the Lords in Committee will often be repeated on Report and even Third Reading. The speeches can be strikingly similar as well.
	Of course, some of this repetition is in order to allow the Government an opportunity to reconsider a point or to place something on the record, but much is self-indulgent. Not surprisingly attendance at many debates on Bills is disappointing. We are rather full tonight—we are debating ourselves—but look into the House at seven o'clock on most nights and you will find it can be fairly empty.
	So, without going into the details, we make suggestions for changing the way in which we deal with legislation, essentially to get much of the technical information out of the way and on the record, so that when a Bill comes to the full Chamber of the House the debates will go to the core of the principles of the Bill and will be given much stronger scrutiny than occurs at the moment.
	We also consider in the report how the House conducts itself. We have discussed the principle of self-regulation on many occasions and I do not intend to go over the ground very much today. But self-regulation will work only if individual Members observe that principle. Too many do not, and we list some examples.
	We are not an amateur House; we are a serious part of the legislature. The House is entitled to have its affairs conducted in an orderly manner, with Members observing the spirit of standing orders. I believe that a Speaker would help.
	We also make practical suggestions to make the Lords work better. I will mention two. We think that Back Benchers ought to be provided with some help to do their job. When it comes to legislation, too much reliance is placed on outside pressure groups for help with research, amendments and speaking notes. We are not full-time politicians; we do not have huge offices staffed with researchers and associates, nor would I want that to happen. But we must ensure that Back-Benchers have sufficient help, when taking part in legislation, to do a decent job.
	I also want to help the Opposition Front Benches. At present, I think that only the Leader of the Conservative Party and the Chief Whip are entitled to draw a salary. I know, as a former Minister, how hard-working Opposition spokespeople are and how much time they have to give. I think that it is in the public interest, and the interest of this House, that people who take senior positions on the Opposition Front Benches are given the support that is necessary. I hope that that recommendation will be seen as a visible indication of our good faith in wanting a second Chamber to be as purposeful as possible.
	This report has been produced by a group of Labour Peers, but I hope that its message and contents will commend it to many other Members of your Lordships' House. We are in no doubt about the value of this House in complementing the House of Commons, nor are we in any doubt about the contribution of this House to the scrutiny of legislation. But neither do we doubt the need for reform and improvement in what we do. That reform will best be undertaken if the House is clear about the appropriate use of its powers.
	A modern second Chamber, able to exercise such powers with confidence, can undoubtedly add value to the deliberations of Parliament. This report points a way ahead to do just that. I commend the report to the House. I beg to move for Papers.

Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I think that the authors of this report are to be thanked for their efforts. The noble Lord and his team are to be congratulated on what I think is a substantial piece of work. That said, I am afraid that there is a lot in their paper with which I do not agree. My first point is that their paper would not have been written in this way except by supporters of the governing party. Its major fault as a programme for action is that it does not take an all-party approach, which is essential if progress is to be made.
	I feel I know what I am talking about, having spent the great bulk of my political career managing government business. Business managers want predictability and order, and the report goes a long way towards giving them just that. Oppositions need an opportunity every now and again to let off steam, to be really angry and, bluntly, to cause a certain amount of mayhem.
	Sensible business managers on both sides know this. They need a degree of flexibility to resolve these matters on an ad hoc basis so that everyone feels they have had a fair crack of the whip. There are two fundamental principles in the way in which we conduct our business. First, a government who command a majority in the Commons are entitled to get their business. And an Opposition who accept that principle are entitled to their rights, and their rights, frankly, are to be very difficult from time to time. The real test of an opposition's conduct is whether they would object to something if they were the government. So detailed and prescriptive rules are counterproductive from everyone's, including the government's, point of view.
	I cannot deal, in a short speech, with all the points noble Lords made in their report, but let me deal with one or two. I am grateful to them for supporting a number of the recommendations that we made in the report of the Royal Commission, of which I had the honour to be the chairman. I point out that the Royal Commission included a number of very experienced members of the Labour Party, and was a unanimous report.
	Let me take some of the Labour Peers' Working Group's key conclusions. I willingly concede that all the points they make are serious and need careful consideration. One of the principal reasons why we did not recommend that Bills starting in the Lords should be subject to the Parliament Act was because it limited, to some extent, the amount of legislation that a government could force through Parliament in any one Session. We felt that that was good for democracy. But there were many other reasons, which we set out in our report. In particular, if a Bill started in the Lords but was then heavily amended by the Commons, this House would not, as a revising Chamber, have any opportunity to do its work properly.
	We gave a lot of thought in our report to whether formal reconciliation machinery for disputes between the Houses should be set up, and I think that a good case can be made for it. But such a body would have to consist of senior figures on both sides, and there would have to be a genuine attempt at a compromise. I would not object to an experiment to see whether that was useful. It would try to resolve matters which ought to be, and usually are, resolved by the usual channels. The House will not be surprised to hear me say that I believe that quiet diplomacy behind the scenes is the way to resolve these difficult matters. It usually entails finding some concession for the opposition that gives them something to crow about but lets the Government get their business.
	The report makes a powerful case for codifying the key conventions, but, on balance, it is not, in my view, the right thing to do. It would encourage oppositions to stick to the letter of the rules and in practice I suspect that that would lead to more delay, not less. The House of Lords has a high reputation for working things out pragmatically, and a degree of flexibility is required from everyone's point of view, including the Government's.
	My last point, but one of the most important, is whether we should have a Speaker with powers. I cannot think of anything more likely to damage the nature of our debates and to cause endless delays. Any House that can contain the late, much-lamented, Lord Hatch, can prosper under self-regulation. Any Speaker, even one given the lightest of rules, has to be in charge, and he will be forced to make judgments, if only to maintain his self-respect.
	In a democracy, these rulings will lead to questions, not of disagreement but of eliciting explanations. Points of order will follow, as night follows day, and will have the effect of prolonging debate and increasing troublemaking.
	I will finish there, because I believe in order and rules when it comes to these things. I shall write to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor because I have plenty more to say.

Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, I welcome the debate as I welcomed the interesting report of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, when it was published. The report is a very useful agenda to which members of all parties, and of none, can decide whether it is time to make some changes.
	Of the seven authors of the report, a majority have experienced life in the House only when sitting on the Government Benches—inevitably a one-sided perspective. Two others have been Ministers, one of them new in the House in 1997, and one a Whip. And the noble Lord, Lord Carter, although a veteran of 10 years in Opposition, was an admirable Chief Whip for a whole Parliament and beyond.
	I make no criticism of the membership of the working group—it would be inappropriate—but the analysis and conclusions of the report have inevitably the flavour of the objectives, problems and frustrations of life on the government side. In that respect, I entirely share the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham.
	Ministers often find the ways of the House time-consuming and repetitive when they want to get on with their departmental work or pass legislation quickly through. Back-Benchers can be bored stiff and restless when they are required to stay late with nothing much to do. But that is the price and privilege of sharing in Parliament.
	Since the general election of 1997, there has been an unprecedented surge of new Members—300 in eight years. Some existing Members feared that the quality of the House would be diluted. Experience has shown something very different. The House now has a wider range of talent than ever before: this includes a higher, though very modest, proportion of women. As for political balance, we now have 203 Labour Peers and 202 Conservatives. Although the promise of "proportionate creations" for Liberal Democrats—the words in the 1999 White Paper—still falls far short, I hope that that failure will soon be remedied.
	These developments are a sufficient reason why the House should undertake a thorough review of its role, performance and methods. But if the House is to consider any of the changes suggested by the report of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, some principles must guide the outcome. First, the report is too heavy when it refers to ever-deteriorating behaviour in the Chamber. I agree that there are some rough edges in self-regulation, but the party leaders, especially the Leader of the House, can do much to ease the problem. We should have a sense of proportion, taking one Parliament with another.
	Secondly, even if the conventions between the House and the House of Commons, which is usually a euphemism for the Government, have recently been tested as the Government claim, it is far too soon to conclude that existing understandings are fatally fractured. In that respect, the report leans the wrong way. Thirdly, and following on from that, we should not rush into a new Parliament Act unless the shortcomings cannot be remedied by agreement. I would be particularly alarmed if the Government were to take unilateral decisions in advance of any cross-party discussions.
	Fourthly, nothing should be done to enhance the formal role of the parties and diminish the role of the individual Member. We should not make the House a three-day week for the convenience of Ministers, or to justify turning it into a family-friendly House, especially when four out of five Members are over the age of 60. Members have chosen to serve in a working Chamber, and their obligations to Parliament should not be diminished.
	The report says that the House should add value to and supplement the work of the House of Commons. At a time when the Commons is seen to be in decline, we should not prejudice the independence of this House until its composition is finally resolved.

Lord Williamson of Horton: My Lords, for this debate I have regained my freedom; I do speak not as Convenor of the Cross-Bench Peers, but for myself. I am thus in a similar position to the authors of the report, who, I understand, speak not for all their colleagues but for their working group.
	The report gives us a good opportunity to explore some of the issues which, so far, the House has not been very willing to open up. I welcome that. There are four sets of important proposals in the report: there is a radical change in the handling of legislation, notably the present Second Reading and Committee stages, and the proposal for time limits on all Bills. There is the new Parliament Act, the codification of the current conventions, notably the Salisbury/Addison convention, and there are other provisions on self-regulation, which is apparently to be improved and partially changed.
	I take those matters in the order in which they appear in the report, starting with the Parliament Act. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, I agree with the proposal that all Bills, whether they start in this House or the other place, other than any Bill to extend the life of the Parliament, should be subject to the Parliament Act. The Parliament Acts are a key assertion of the primacy of the first elected Chamber, and that is why I take that view. I am in favour of a fairly wide use of the carry-over provisions, and I could look favourably on a procedure for conciliation meetings between the two Houses in the event of serious disagreements likely to trigger the application of the Parliament Act. In another Parliament, I have experienced those conciliation meetings, and they are sometimes quite useful.
	On the question of what the report describes as time limits for each Bill in Parliament, I understand the motivation but believe that the report goes too far. If in due course some changes are to be made in the present system of considering Bills in Committee, there would in any event be some speeding up of the passage of Bills in this House. Of course a programme on which a Government have been elected must go forward at a reasonable pace in Parliament, but getting it through must also involve getting it right.
	On the second point raised, on the codification of conventions, I would myself find no difficulty in embedding the Salisbury/Addison convention by including it in an agreement of all major groups to be approved by resolution. That is, not legislation but a resolution. I would not find great difficulty with that.
	On the third point, which is the handling of legislation, I would not favour the loss of a Second Reading, which would fall under the proposals in this document. But I believe that some of the repetition at Committee stage and the tabling of many amendments which are withdrawn could be reduced. Some form of deliberative stage could be introduced which would make some difference, and pre-legislative scrutiny would help.
	On the fourth point, which is self-regulation and the Speakership, I am in favour of self-regulation and not in favour of a Speaker. But I would not find it difficult to give the noble Lord on the Woolsack a limited role at Question Time in avoiding discord about who is to ask the next supplementary question or in asking noble Lords not to ask too many questions or make too many speeches in the guise of a single supplementary question. That would go a little beyond what the Chief Whip does now, but would not change the basic structure; we would not have a Speaker; we would have someone who would make the point, but not necessarily as we do it now.
	Finally, on a Cross-Bencher's conception of the role of the House, I see the role of the two Houses as equal, subject of course to the power of initiative of the House of Commons, the right of the House of Commons always to overrule us if it thinks it necessary, and the control by the House of Commons of the money supply. But in the scrutiny and, I hope, improvement of legislation, and in the drawing of the public's attention to major points—we had a marvellous example today in the debate secured by the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker—I see the role of the two Houses as equal.
	It is most important that we do not take the view that we are simply a subsidiary House, which we are inclined to do from time to time. At the next election, we shall probably have a turnout of about 54 per cent of the electorate, whereas for the whole period from 1947 up to 1997, we had an average of 76 per cent. Why is that? Because people—very notably the young—feel themselves detached from the political process. People blame the Government, but I do not: I blame Parliament to a considerable degree for that situation, and it is extremely important as we make changes in our procedures or in the relations between the two Houses that we do not inadvertently make that situation worse.

Lord Carter: My Lords, it was a privilege to serve on the Labour Peers' Working Group under the expert chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath. After 10 years on the opposition Front Bench and five years as Chief Whip, I believe that the central point is actually quite simple. What combination of powers, procedures and conventions will help to strike the crucial balance between the undoubted right of the elected government to obtain their programme of legislation without unreasonable delay, and the right of the House of Lords to scrutinise, revise and if necessary delay, with the overlaying consideration that whatever the composition of the House the government of the day will always be in a minority?
	As a former business manager, I am naturally concerned with the effective and efficient progress of business which should be the central consideration of any Chamber of any Parliament; but by that I do not mean giving the government of the day an easier ride or increasing the load of legislation. The key consideration in the management of parliamentary business is time, and the effective and efficient use of the time of the House will help the Opposition as much as the Government.
	One of the key changes in recent Sessions—introduced by Motions of both Houses, not by legislation—is the use of carry-over. I have long supported the principle of carry-over. If a Bill is ready, why should it not be introduced instead of having to wait for arbitrary sessional dates, with the inevitable pile-up of business at the end of each Session? Parliamentary logjams do not make for the proper consideration of well drafted Bills. But if carry-over becomes the norm, there will have to be agreement on the total amount of time allowed between introduction in the first House and completion in the second House. Currently, one Session is allowed. With carry-over as the norm, each Bill should have effectively its own mini-Session of, say, 12 months, with a suitable division of the time in each House. The group has suggested 60 parliamentary days as the possible time in the Lords, which would be approaching 50 per cent of the normal Session of 140 to 150 days.
	If there were a clear agreement in and between both Houses and both Houses had agreed to suitable changes in their Standing Orders, it is a moot point whether such a change would necessitate legislation. A problem arises when a Bill does not complete its passage within its agreed time limit of, say, 12 months. How would the Parliament Act then work? I am not sure that it is clear how well the current Parliament Act applies to Bills that are carried over. If there were to be the change I have described whereby each Bill had its own mini-Session, the Parliament Act would need to be amended to accommodate that.
	In any reconsideration of the Parliament Act, there are three crucial elements. How long should a Bill be in Parliament the first time round? Currently it is one Session; but, as I say, it could be 12 months from its first introduction. If it falls the first time round, how soon could it be reintroduced, and how long should it have the second time round before the Parliament Act applies? That is obviously too complicated to deal with in detail now, but the principles are clear. I would argue that all Bills should be eligible for carry-over. There should be an agreed total time limit on each Bill—I have suggested 12 months—and an agreed time limit in each House.
	In conclusion, perhaps I may deal with two arguments that we have heard already—that all these changes will give the Government the chance to steamroller through more legislation, and that the Opposition will lose their powers of delay.
	The first proposition is incorrect. There are only so many parliamentary days in the year. So the same number of Bills would be introduced, but they would be spread much more evenly through the life of the Parliament, and the workload of both Houses would be more evenly spread—and that is both in each House and between the Houses.
	The Opposition will have exactly the same power; in fact, they will have more power. The power that they have now is exercisable at the end of the Session on the Bills that have not completed their progress—what we call the "wash up" at the end of each Session. The Opposition will have that power at the end of each mini-Session on each Bill. I can see the Chief Whip really blanching when he reads that in Hansard.

Lord Grocott: I am here.

Lord Carter: I think he has collapsed, my Lords.
	The Opposition would have the power at the end of each Bill to exercise the negotiating skills that they have now. Also, as carry-over does not apply at the end of a Parliament, the Opposition will be just as powerful as they are now as we approach the end of a Parliament.
	There is one final and very important point. It has been argued that any attempt to amend the Parliament Acts would allow the tabling of amendments that deal with composition. I understand—and I have discussed it—that if the amendments deal strictly with time limits only, then amendments that deal with composition will be outside the scope of the Bill. In other words, if the amendment were to replace the two Sessions currently provided in the Parliament Act with, say, two periods of 12 months, such an amendment would not open the door to amendments on composition.
	I have spoken on only one important aspect of a very important report. I hope that our recommendations will be taken forward for constructive dialogue within Government, with the Opposition and between both Houses.

Lord Renton: My Lords, I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Carter, with much interest, especially when he expressed some doubts about the feasibility of some of the Labour Peers' proposals for reform of your Lordships' House. Although I agree with some of them, I cannot accept the need for all the legislation proposed. In particular, I strongly disagree with the suggestions in paragraphs 3 to 7 that even our internal powers of procedure should become statutory. I say that because it really is necessary that we should continue to be flexible in the conduct of our own procedures.
	Of course, the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949 could, and in my opinion should, be brought up to date and made more clearly workable, while ensuring, however, that your Lordships' policies and powers are not entirely ignored. I say that because, during my 59 years in Parliament, there have been vast constitutional changes caused not merely by changing legislation, but in the composition and experience of Members of both Houses.
	During my 24 years in the Commons, there was a vast amount of varied expertise and experience among the elected Members, including Members of every profession, businessmen, trades unionists, farmers, miners and others. Now, Members of Parliament are mostly less experienced. Among your Lordships, however, there is wide experience and expertise. Perhaps I may give one example. We used to have 20 or 30 Queen's Counsel in the Commons; now there are only 10, of whom eight are Conservatives. But here in your Lordships' House, we have 34 QCs spread across the parties and, of course, the Cross Benches.
	As to legislation, it has in my opinion become over the years too detailed and covers ever more of our national life. It might help the Government and Members of both Houses to have a look at a report published in 1975 on the preparation of legislation by an official committee of which I was the chairman, but with much more eminent members on it than I was. We made 121 proposals, of which the most important were numbers 13 and 15, recommending that in legislation we should make use of statements of principle and purpose instead of enacting masses of hypothetical detail, which had been the practice for too long.
	Those are the things that I needed to say, but I should also say this: because of the current experience and expertise in your Lordships' House, we should no longer be regarded merely as a Chamber for consultation. I really do think that when the Parliament Acts are renewed, as I hope they will be, the greater expertise and experience to be found in your Lordships' House will be acknowledged.

Lord Lloyd of Berwick: My Lords, it is a privilege, as always, to follow the noble Lord, Lord Renton. He referred to the number of QCs in the House. I think I am right in saying that he is by far the most senior of those QCs; I think he has been in silk for 50 years or even more. He is certainly, as far as I am concerned, the most respected.
	I welcome this report. That does not mean that I agree with every word, but I agree with a great deal of it. I should like, however, to concentrate on a single point, the one which the group makes at the bottom of page 12 under the heading "Legislative Process Within the House of Lords". It is an important point which was touched on by my noble friend Lord Williamson of Horton.
	The problem as I see it is not so much with our legislative process—the fault does not lie there; it has served us well over the years. However, our process was designed for a more leisurely age than that in which we now live. The real problem we face is the remorseless pressure of endless legislation with which we have to deal. Departments seem to vie with each other to get a place in the Queen's Speech. All governments want to fill the Queen's Speech to overflowing in case it be said that they are running out of steam.
	There is nothing that we in this House can do to reduce the pressure of legislation, though I wish there were. So it seems to me that instead we must do something to adapt our processes so that we can deal with this new situation. That is what, among other things, the committee under the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has bravely undertaken.
	It is not only the quantity of legislation that is the problem, but also the way in which legislation is put together—take the Constitutional Reform Bill by way of example. I mention it by way of example because it is the Bill with which I am most familiar although other Bills could no doubt have been mentioned. That Bill contains three major issues of principle: the abolition of the Lord Chancellor; the creation of a new Supreme Court; and the creation of a Judicial Appointments Commission. Each of those issues was worthy of a full Second Reading debate. When we came to the Second Reading, a fourth issue was added; namely, whether the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee. So many noble Lords wanted to speak on those issues that, if my memory is right, we had six, seven or perhaps even fewer minutes to deal with four major issues, which amounts to less than two minutes each.
	It was inevitable in those circumstances that the points of principle for which there was not time on Second Reading spilt over into the Committee Stage where they inevitably became mixed up with true Committee points. The usual objection was made, as always, that one was making a Second Reading point rather than a Committee point.
	As regards these important Bills, I do not believe that we have the balance right between time spent on Second Reading and time spent in Committee. It seems to me that the solution—this is what I think the report is aiming at in paragraph nine—is to find some way in which we can make better use of the limited time which is available to us. That to my mind means more time on Second Reading issues and less time on Committee issues.
	I may have misunderstood but I think that is what the committee is aiming at when it refers to the decision stage. That is the important stage. I am not sure that my noble friend Lord Williamson—to whom I always defer—was quite right about that. I think the report basically favours a longer Second Reading stage and a shorter Committee stage. That is certainly what I would favour. The proposal looks revolutionary but in that respect the committee is very much on the right lines. I hope that it will not be necessary to indulge in too many discussions with the House of Commons on that point—which it seems to anticipate—as we could deal with it ourselves. I believe that we should deal with it urgently.

Lord Hoyle: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Hunt and the committee for all the work that they have done. The document that they produced is certainly causing the House to think about its procedures rather than its composition. That in itself is a change. Previously discussion has focused on composition. We ought to also discuss procedures.
	I could not agree more with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, when he said that the procedures of this House were designed for a more leisurely age. I put it another way: time has passed by and the House has not changed. Far too often noble Lords pat each other on the back and think that all is well with the world. However, whether we like it or not, we shall be examined. Lords reform will be an election issue; it is bound to come up. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, laughs at that. However, what is different this time is that the Lords are taking a lead. Far too often this Chamber has reacted to the proposals of others rather than putting forward its own.
	Many of the proposals that we are discussing are modest and were designed to try to reach a consensus across parties. As has rightly been said, we will not achieve change in this House without a consensus for change. It is very important to remember that the House of Commons is the premier House. We should all start from that basis. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, mentioned carry-over. I see much merit in his proposals in that regard. An interesting suggestion was made regarding reconciliation machinery being set up between ourselves and the House of Commons. That might be one way of getting over difficulties when we are seen to be totally at odds with the other place. As we all know, in the end the House of Commons is the elected House and it is bound to get its way. Would it not be better if Members of both Houses met to see whether they could reach agreement before that stage was reached? We could then probably avoid use of the Parliament Act. That is an important point.
	I turn to a matter that we ought to consider and that is the role of a so-called Speaker for this House—I do not care whether that person is called a Speaker, a presiding officer, or whatever—who would have the relevant powers to take a decision. Some of those powers are vested in the Leader at present. It would be better if such a decision were taken by a neutral person presiding on the Woolsack. Such a person would be helpful if he or she stopped the time wasting that goes on. As has been outlined in the report, time after time Second Reading speeches are made in Committee and at Report. That goes on and on. Amendments are tabled and retabled. We need someone to remind us gently—we are not talking about the Commons—that that is not permitted and to remind noble Lords when they reach their allotted time in timed debates. If such a reminder were gently put to noble Lords, I am sure such a person would command the attention of the House.
	As I say, I see much good in the report. If we do not make up our minds to change, change will come anyway and we will not be in the driving seat bringing that about. This is a constructive debate and is making all of us think about something that should have been considered long ago; namely, our procedures. There is nothing wrong in making them more effective and more in keeping with this century rather than previous centuries.

Lord Biffen: My Lords, I take up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hoyle, concerning the possibility of more formalised arrangements for our first item of business, Question Time. It is a relatively narrow issue, but on the other hand it is a premium time during the day when the House is crowded. It is an occasion when the House has the opportunity to demonstrate its effectiveness with advantage. At the moment, we are supposed to be guided by the Companion to the Standing Orders, which suggests:
	"Supplementary Questions may be asked but they should be short and confined to not more than two points".
	Secondly, such questions "should not be read". If this were rigorously followed, this place would be fit only for apprentices to a Trappist monastery. They are not rigorously followed; they are widely disregarded. I suppose the situation was brought to my mind sharply when we had exchanges on the minimum wage on 15 December. I am not critical of those who took part in those exchanges, but they were not particularly elevating for the conduct of the House, and we almost got to the point of business proceeding by public acclaim or public dissent; that cannot be wise for this Chamber. Therefore, I have a good deal more sympathy with the proposition of a Speaker, or whatever title you may give it, to take some role during Question Time. I notice that the proposals of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and his committee, say:
	"A Speaker should be elected by the House. Members of the House should become more disciplined and abide by its rules and procedures".
	That is fairly robust language for entering into a situation in which hitherto we have moved with great circumspection. After all, there is a great nostalgia for having a free-for-all; it was like that in the eighteenth century, it is not as though it is something that we have lived with for the past two or three years. It is something we have had because we never had the experience of Parnell and the Irish home rulers, who transformed the House of Commons from being something like a good-natured rabble into the much more disciplined organisation that it is today. It is perfectly true that there are some dangers if you establish the position of someone having supervisory authority at Question Time, but alas as I am under the garrotting after five minutes I cannot enter into a real debate with my noble friend Lord Wakeham. However, the idea that the place would be seized with points of order—the position is not like that. The chemistry here is totally different. The point was made that there were only eight QCs in the House of Commons; there are 80 barrack room lawyers all dying to make a way of life out of points of order. It would be totally different here. None of us can say how this will proceed, but we ought at least to make some move and do it without great expectation but none the less as a constructive experiment.
	I conclude by quoting from the evidence given by the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, to the Select Committee on speakership on 15 October:
	"I do not seek to have a Speaker in this House with a high profile approach . . . I would want the Speaker to be elected by the whole House, to be totally impartial once elected and, if he came from a political party . . . I would want him to leave his political party for the remainder of his life to show that impartiality. The Speaker would become the servant of this House".
	That is an ambitious aspiration, but we cannot continue with the present arrangements for the conduct of Question Time. This House is changing, in its composition and in its authority. With those changes, there must be changes in our practice. I agree entirely with the previous speaker that if we do not change; change will overcome us.

Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I have not spoken seriously from these Benches for a long time now, so noble Lords must forgive me if I am a bit rusty. I have spent most of my time in this House doing Select Committee work or as the Chairman of Committees. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and his colleagues on producing a useful report, which is a useful starting point for a wide-ranging debate, and which I hope we will all take the opportunity of building on. I agree with a number of the key conclusions. I will not go through them in seriatim, but I will pick out one or two.
	On the subject of time limits, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Williamson. I see no possibility of time limits, because Bills vary so much. We have had reference already to some of these "compendium" Bills that come through now, where really three or four Bills are within the same cover. The amount of time that is necessary to deal with some of the items both at Second Reading—and I do not altogether go along with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, in what he said, but I understand it—and in Committee. Yesterday, we saw a good example, where the first amendment took over two hours; but it was a magnificent debate, which showed this House at its best. We must be careful that we do not constrain ourselves to inhibit that sort of debate, because it makes a real contribution to an issue that is commanding widespread interest in the country and which cannot be dealt with in the Commons.
	The problem comes when these sort of things are repeated on Report and sometimes at Third Reading. I was moved to stand up a few weeks ago to complain that noble Lords were putting down amendments to remove whole clauses at Third Reading. That is improper and is certainly outside the Companion. The trouble is that there is a theory in this place that it is only by putting time pressure on the Government that we can get concessions. That is true, but let us examine the situation and figure out just how many concessions we get in a Session. It may be two or three, but if the whole process of the year is geared up to putting that pressure on in the last couple of weeks in the Session, we are being rather silly in how we use our time.
	If the present rules were observed, there would be no problem. I have said that to the Chief Whip. I understand why the Government are reluctant to intervene too often in persuading Members of your Lordships' House to stick to the rules: they feel that they might be accused of bias. I do not believe they would be, but I can understand why they might take that view.
	The rules should be observed. It needs someone to stand up and say, "Look, this is not right", and for Members from all the other Benches to agree with and support that. Of course, the Chief Whips cannot be in the House all the time. However, before we go into some of the other details of the report, we must see whether we can get our House in order and make self-regulation work properly.
	The question of the Speaker was dealt with in the committee on which I had the honour to sit, under the distinguished chairmanship of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick. If people were to read that again, it might answer some of the points raised in the report. I think that, in fact, the phrase used came from the Clerk of the Parliaments, although perhaps it is unfair to mention this in his absence. He said that if we are to have a Speaker, the role should be as the guardian of the Companion. That strikes me as a very useful phrase. The Companion is our rulebook and we need someone to exercise that rulebook quietly and gently.
	On a minor point, I see that there is a suggestion that the Public Bill Office should decide on groupings of amendments. I do not like that idea. It may well be that the Public Bill Office should recommend groupings of amendments, but a decision on the groupings must rest finally with your Lordships.
	On the question of changes to the process, I refer noble Lords to the Rippon report—again, I had the honour to serve on that committee. At one stage, we considered recommending the reintroduction of First Reading debates, which they used to have in the Commons. In a sense, that bears on some of the suggestions that have been made here whereby a Minister can come before the House and answer questions on his report. As I am talking about self-regulation and I see that five minutes are up, I shall sit down.

Lord Gordon of Strathblane: My Lords, like others, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Hunt on his report. I know that the members of his group have widely disparate views, but those views have been harmonised into a coherent package which has merited the serious consideration given to it by your Lordships this evening.
	At this point, if it is not premature, perhaps I may say that I believe the tone of tonight's debate reflects very well on the House as a whole. Noble Lords are not fulminating about people trying to railroad government legislation; we are trying to tweak what has been suggested and make it better. I very much echo the views of the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, that this is the start of the debate and not the end of it.
	The noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, struck a responsive chord with everyone in this House by arguing for flexibility. We all love flexibility; we do not like statutory provisions which lawyers will limbo-dance under. But there is a difference between flexibility and lack of clarity. When the validity of the Parliament Act 1949 is a matter to go before the courts, as is the case at present, and some doubt has been expressed by no less eminent a person than the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, I think that that is taking flexibility a little too far. We need some clarity.
	In any event, the Parliament Acts date from 1911 and 1949 and so arguably revision is long overdue. The powers of the House could be considered without seriously impairing our work as a revising Chamber. As has already been suggested, this House's main value is to force the Government to think again. In my view, a reversal forces reconsideration not necessarily by the Government but by individual MPs. That is because the Lords have shone the spotlight of publicity on something which has been totally overlooked by the Commons. The Commons then realise that the public support the Lords' viewpoint and the Government have to change their mind. So it is that spotlight of publicity, rather than the length of any delay, which makes the difference. For that reason, I am quite flexible about the length of the delay.
	My main enthusiasm for the report centres on pages 12, 13 and 14, where a new and different way of dealing with legislation is considered. As a Peer who entered the House at the same time as my noble friend Lord Hunt, it seems to me absolutely amazing that we get any legislation through Parliament at all, with one end hardly talking to the other and the two seldom working together.
	There has been a general welcome for pre-legislative scrutiny, and I would love that to be conducted by a Joint Committee of both Houses. It would harmonise the skills of both Chambers with a much better result. It is to be hoped that that might be a precursor to both Houses working together more closely as complementary parts of the one Parliament. I do not see much sense in a Bill going through all its stages in one House and then doing the same in the other. We could interleave the process. The report of my noble friend Lord Hunt is the start of a debate on this matter, but let us look more sensibly at how we can best improve the legislation that comes before us.
	I have no objection to moving to one continuous Session of Parliament that starts immediately after a general election and ends with prorogation before the next general election. I also would not object, or think it very iconoclastic, if we moved the State Opening of Parliament from this House to Westminster Hall, arguably the oldest part of Westminster. That might remove much of the tension between the Lords and the Commons.
	I disagree with the little dig of the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, about this place working a three-day week. If one wants the House of Lords to go the same way as the House of Commons, one can maintain the present working hours and end up with no one with current experience of what is going on. At the moment, if we are to demand four days a week from everyone, how can anyone be a Member of the House of Lords unless one is fully retired, independently wealthy or living and working within the M25? My reason for arguing for three consecutive legislative days is precisely to retain the current experience and expertise held by Members of your Lordships' House. I hope that the proposal will commend itself to the Procedure Committee when it comes to consider the matter.

Lord Jopling: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has done the House a service in introducing this debate. I hope he will forgive me if I gently tease him. On page 79, the report complains of constant breaches of the guidance on the length of speeches. The Chief Whip told us at the beginning of the proceedings that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, was allocated 15 minutes and if the clock says "15 minutes" and he is still talking, he has been talking for too long. I noticed, with some amusement, that the clock said "16 minutes" when he sat down.
	I have three issues to raise. First, as a general rule on the reform of parliamentary proceedings, I have a theory, which is an old one, that "if it ain't broke, don't try to fix it". Of course, Parliament is a living institution. Every now and again, it is necessary to reform the procedures, but when that happens it is essential that there is broad consent across the parties.
	My colleagues may recall that in another place in 1991 I chaired a Select Committee on reforming the procedures of another place. We had a unanimous report, but because we could not get all-party agreement until 1995 or 1996, the government of the day did not seek to implement the recommendations. I know that the Government could have driven the matter through, but did not because it was essential to achieve all-party agreement. That has not been a feature of this Government's behaviour on procedure over the past eight years.
	My second point concerns the report. As, I believe, the third of four former Chief Whips speaking tonight, I hear familiar echoes in the report of government Back-Benchers' restlessness due to the long hours of tedious waiting for a Division that often does not happen. The report is full of ways to make it easier for government to achieve their business, or of making it easier for government Back-Benchers to perform their duties. Quite frankly, a great deal of the report is a government Chief Whips' and government Back-Benchers' wish list. Let us not get away from that.
	I could quote many examples of that: voting only between three o'clock and seven o'clock, which I regard as an abomination; taking Second Reading and Committee stages off the Floor of the House, which is implied on page 13; and, if you please, officials answering questions in those proceedings. In the early days of a Parliament with a mass of highly contentious legislation coming through, a time limit of 60 days on all Bills would mean a greatly reduced opportunity to consider Bills properly. Finally, the extension of the carry-over between Sessions, or even the abolition of Sessions altogether, I would regard as a business manager's dream.
	My third point is that the general tone of the paper is of impatience that the House in recent years allegedly has become more assertive. I believe that that is inevitable, as most of the hereditaries have left and the House is now dominated much more by those of us who have experience in another place.
	One statement that I underline most strongly and applaud is that the government of the day must be allowed to get their business. Considering the examples of the greater robustness, which appear on page 5 of the report, I hardly believe that there is very much evidence of it leading to the Government failing to get their business outside the normal setbacks and amendments which governments have to put up with and which are the standing hallmarks of that awkwardness and cussedness that we call parliamentary democracy.
	But all this is putting the cart before the horse. The report omits any reference to the future composition of the House, and I understand why. The House will become infinitely more assertive, robust and cussed if we have either a large or a small influx of elected members. I believe that we ought to consider reform of the procedures once we have decided what the composition of the House should be, because whether it is all elected or part elected or all appointed, it will make a great deal of difference in the future to the way the House behaves.

Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, this very interesting report contains a large number of specific recommendations. If one looks at them individually, one can find some with which one agrees, others with which one disagrees, and yet others which would provide a helpful introduction to further consideration—for example, the rolling programme of legislation.
	However, I would emphasise that if any further work is to be done to move forward these recommendations, it is a matter for the Procedure Committee or for a sub-committee set up by it, and not for an ad hoc working group, brought into being by the Leader, outside our organisational structure, and, as in the past, dominated by party leaders and whips, to the virtual exclusion of Back-Bench interests.
	In the very short time available I wish to adopt the invitation of the group and to look not at individual proposals, but at the proposals as a cohesive package designed as a contribution to the overall question of the functions, powers and composition of the House.
	For that purpose I pose two related questions: first, would the procedural changes recommended in this report, seen as a package, enable the House to perform its proper tasks better; and, secondly, if these changes were introduced, would a second Chamber conducted on these lines be more likely to attract the kind of members which it will need to enable it to perform those functions to best advantage?
	Having considered my two questions, on balance there is no real doubt. I am convinced that the answer to each of them is a resounding "no". I believe that the changes would reduce the efficacy of this House as a real force in the legislature, and would deter rather than attract the calibre of person which the House needs.
	The underlying reason for this rather depressing conclusion is not hard to find. The report approaches the legislative processes of the House almost entirely from the position of a government who wish to get through their business and of the loyal supporters of such a government, who have to be available to vote for that business. That is hardly surprising when one takes the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, about the composition of the body.
	The group's state of mind is most obviously exemplified by the proposal that, first:
	"Voting on legislation . . . should take place in prime time"—
	that is, between three o'clock and 7.30. It does not tell us what is to happen to Committee and Report stages after 7.30, unless the House is then to go home. Secondly, the report proposes:
	"Delayed Divisions for non-bill votes. This would enable members to maximise their attendances as they would know when votes were likely to happen".
	"Maximise their attendance" seemingly means to turn up only when they are required to go through a Division Lobby.
	Nothing in that does anything to encourage or help Back-Benchers or indeed any Members of the House who wish to take an independent line and seems to treat all debate as a formal preliminary to the votes which are to pass the Government's business. Therefore, I do not think its recommendations will achieve the purposes that should be in mind.
	The report also reveals, but does not address, a basic dichotomy. The conventions of this House arose because the House in the past recognised that it lacked democratic legitimacy, being dominated by one party. That lack has been reduced, and presumably will be reduced yet further in future changes. So as that lack is reduced, so is the justification and need for the conventions. It is strange that the group should wish to cast those conventions in legislative stone shortly before their justification will have evaporated, or largely gone.

Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, I begin by saying that I considered it a privilege to have been elected to the working group that wrote the report. I pay tribute to my colleagues on it for their dedication and willingness to seek consensus among ourselves for agreed conclusions and record my thanks to our advisers and secretariat, who gave us such unstinting time and support. In particular, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath on his skill in chairing a group with strongly held differing views with great dedication and good humour.
	It should be said that although we all hold different views about the exact form of a future second Chamber, we all agree with the content of the report. It is important to stress what is stated there:
	"The proposals in this paper are a cohesive package of measures which require consideration as a whole rather than in a piecemeal way".
	I am therefore in complete agreement with all the contents of the report, which were thrashed out during our many meetings, and I commend the report in its entirety to your Lordships.
	In the time available to me, I shall highlight two points. The first is a recommendation about the legislative process and our proposals for a deliberative stage, a second stage for decisions and a revision stage to replace the current First and Second Readings, Committee, Report and Third Reading. As we state, that would,
	"reduce many of the traditional ritualistic and repetitive proceedings".
	Time prevents me going into more detail, but our thinking is all laid out on pages 12 to 15, and we believe that those changes would improve the quality and effectiveness of the legislative process in the Lords. There is no need for us simply to mirror the processes of the House of Commons.
	Secondly, I highlight our welcome, as a step forward, for the recommendations on the functions of the Speaker in the report of the Lords committee on the Speakership, which we enumerate in our report on page 18. As we state in our report, I believe very strongly that self-regulation depends on self-discipline by the Members of the House, which would be strengthened by a Speaker guiding the proceedings.
	However, if that fails and Members do not exercise that self-discipline, as we state in the report:
	"the case for a regulated second chamber becomes very persuasive".
	In my opinion, it becomes overwhelming. I speak as one who has experienced being on the opposition Benches and I say to the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, andthe noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, that three out of seven of the working group have had experience on the opposition Benches. I have also been a government Whip and am now a Deputy Speaker and I have seen the ever-increasing problems with self-regulation.
	I conclude, as does our report, with the opinion that,
	"a modern second chamber, able to exercise its powers with confidence, can add value to the deliberations of Parliament, scrutinise the Government and complement the work of the House of Commons".
	Our recommendations would ensure just such a modern second Chamber.

Lord Hunt of Wirral: My Lords, continuing uncertainty about the future of a legislative body debilitates it and undermines its authority, so I stress the urgent need to resolve the way forward for this House. I hope that I can reflect that urgency in my remarks.
	As many of your Lordships have already pointed out, the report is well written and thought-provoking. I commend the excellent speech of my friend and colleague the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath. The report contains several good suggestions but, inevitably, as several noble Lords have already pointed out, it only tells part of the story. The crucial role of this House as a revising body, and any changes to that role, are not the property of any one party or group, and any sustainable arrangement must enjoy support from all parts of the House.
	In the time available, I have four brief points to make. First, the Salisbury doctrine is a good one, and I am sure that the proposal to codify it short of legislation is wise and workable.
	Secondly, I see considerable merit in a less formal deliberative stage, suggested in the report, for our first scrutiny of new legislation. I know from my time as a Minister that no drafting is ever perfect, and some points should be taken on board quickly in the same, wholly non-partisan spirit in which they are made. Last week, I pointed out what I believed to be a flaw in the Charities Bill and proposed an important change, to which Ministers swiftly acceded. The new deliberative process proposed in the report might make it possible to resolve many more non-contentious issues of that kind in an efficient, amicable and informal way at the earliest possible stage.
	I am sad to say that my third point is less laudatory. The report calls for our effective veto on secondary legislation to be abolished, and for a mandatory time limit on our scrutiny of Bills. As several noble Lords have already pointed out, I can well understand why a party in government might favour such changes, but I am sure that it is wrong. Time limits are never reasonable, and guillotines, as we have seen from the other place, impose a rigidity that prevents proper scrutiny.
	As to secondary legislation, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, may well recall an instance in 2002 when he was a Minister and I prayed against a statutory instrument that he had laid relating to NHS charges payable after a road traffic accident. There had been no consultation on that important and controversial measure and, in view of my opposition, he graciously revoked it. I refer to his parliamentary Answer on 6 February 2002. The system can and does work, so why meddle with it?
	My fourth point is that, if we move to a Supreme Court, I hope that we in this place will still be able to call on the excellent work of Law Lords. I refer in particular to the vital contribution that they have made in chairing, for example, the Law and Institutions Sub-Committee of the European Union Committee. I hope that we can in some way continue to call on the accumulated wisdom, experience and expertise of distinguished former senior judges such as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, who spoke earlier.
	In sum, let us hope that the elusive consensus on which a new constitutional settlement must be built is now not too long in coming.

Baroness Gould of Potternewton: My Lords, like other noble Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and his committee on producing a thoughtful and comprehensive report, most of the recommendations of which I support in principle.
	The growing and constant breaches of the Companion have been illustrated by other noble Lords. They make it clear that, if the Companion is not adhered to, at some stage there will be more and more demand for a Speaker to draw attention to it and be its guardian, as the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, identified. One wishes that that was not necessary and that self-regulation worked; unfortunately, that is not the case.
	I fully support the proposal in the report that there is a need for the simplification and re-examination of the workings of the Parliament Act. Of course, the uses of the Act must always be a last resort after every effort has been made to resolve the differences between the two Houses. The powers of the suggested joint conciliation committee would need careful consideration. Would it, for instance, have a remit not only to consider the issue in dispute but be empowered to reach the final decision? That must be a better way than the current method of ping-pong, as there would be established a period of calm rather than the current frenetic procedure.
	One area that is not discussed is that of establishing a business committee—I see the Government Chief Whip in his place—on similar lines to that of the Scottish Parliament. This proposal has received cross party support in many reports. Such a committee would not replace the usual channels but would ensure a more inclusive process.
	The recent report of the Select Committee on the Constitution, Parliament and the Legislative Process, in which I declare an interest as a member, and the report we are considering today, call for improvements in the way that primary legislation is scrutinised. The scrutiny in this House is of a different nature from that in the other place, often more expert and authoritative, and it is often the only time that the whole of a Bill is examined in detail. That places a responsibility on this Chamber to get it right and we can do that more effectively by making better use of the mechanisms that are already in place, as well as arranging new ones.
	The provision for carry-over and a rolling programme of legislation was agreed by both Houses in 2002, but is rarely employed. There appears to have been a reluctance to break out of the existing sessional mentality. Although there are many advantages, Bills can be staggered and more Bills can be produced in draft with more time for legislative scrutiny. While there has to be a pre-determined cut-off date, it would remove what has been referred to as the "tidal wave" approach to legislation.
	It is generally recognised that pre-legislative scrutiny has been a significant and positive development in improving legislation. It allows for a more reassured consideration of a Bill's principles, questions new policy initiatives and allows time for consideration of practical and technical issues. It also allows for a wide range of interested and expert parties to exercise influence at an early stage, connecting the legislative process with wider parliamentary and public opinion—and, of course, it makes it easier for the Government to readjust their thinking before the final Bill is published, usually to the satisfaction of the people involved.
	The deliberative proposals for the stages of a Bill through your Lordships' House are imaginative and should receive serious consideration. There is absolutely no reason why we have to follow the pattern of the other place. Our concern has to be further to improve the quality of our scrutiny.
	Finally, post-legislate scrutiny has not yet been mentioned. Currently, it is patchy and tends to occur only when problems become apparent. Proper post-legislative scrutiny can illuminate what lessons can be learnt for future handling of Bills, as well as determine that the legislation has achieved the purpose for which it was intended. Legislators have to be responsible for the law in its totality, so ways must be found to carry out this important function.
	As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said in his opening remarks, this report adds to the many reports that have already been produced on the procedures and powers of your Lordships' House—many still sit on shelves, gathering dust. Let us hope that that is not the case with this report and that it is the start of a serious debate.

Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, I welcome this report. I agree with much of it, but I am a tad more cynical in my approach than some noble Lords were in their speeches. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, rightly said that the ability to delay is key to the powers of this House. But he and his group make no mention of what they believe the right time for delay should be. Perhaps I may remind your Lordships that Peter Hain, the Leader of the House of Commons and the Lord Privy Seal, after we delayed the Bill to abolish the office of Lord Chancellor at Second Reading a few months ago, announced the Government's intention to reform the 1911 and 1949 Parliament Acts. But he added:
	"I think instead of just looking at the composition, we will also seek to curtail the powers of the Lords and seek to get manageable procedure into the Lords . . . we need to bring down the period that it can frustrate the will of the Commons from a year to under a year, and we need to get procedures in place that will allow legislation to go through".
	When the Leader of the Commons says "manageable procedure", he means, of course, procedure that the Commons, particularly the Government, will find satisfactory and, thus, a delaying power of less than one Session. I am wholly opposed to that.
	At the moment, there is a widespread impression that the executive government—Nos. 10 and 12 Downing Street—strengthened by a large majority, over-dominates the Commons and pays precious little attention often to what is said there. Statements are made to the press at 10 a.m. in order to catch the evening press, rather than waiting for the Commons to be in business. The Prime Minister frequently does not bother to vote. In consequence, the public, too, comes to regard the "Today" programme as more influential—perhaps even more decisive—than Parliament.
	To put that right, I have no doubt, after 23 years in the Commons and being a government Chief Whip there, that we need a second Chamber with more power, not less, and a Chamber that will not hesitate to use that power. It is, of course, impossible to separate powers from constitution, which I think the closing remark made by the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, implied is his judgment too. I suggest therefore that when the Parliament Act is revised, the delaying power should be returned again to two Sessions rather than one, particularly as a result of the carry-over powers that are now becoming more and more popular. But those powers must be matched by an appropriate change in our constitution.
	Throughout the 20th century, the reduction in the powers of the Lords was constantly justified because of the predominance of hereditary Peers. The second Chamber was, therefore, not considered legitimate—the words used to justify diminishing the powers of this House. The same argument will apply if, by stages, we all become appointed, whether by the Prime Minister, an independent commission or whatever.
	Therefore, at the same time as the return of a two-year delay, there is a necessity for the election of Members of at least a substantial part of the House. The two things would go hand-in-hand. Only that will give us the legitimacy we need to exercise genuine, reforming and revising muscle on the Commons, whose ultimate superiority, of course, I accept. For good measure, I throw in the thought that one-third of the upper Chamber should remain Cross-Benchers of no political allegiance, genuinely independent, either appointed or elected, possibly on a self-nominated regional basis or elected by profession, as in the Hong Kong legislative council. I have no problem that the reconciliation Standing Joint Committee should resolve differences to prevent Parliament Act procedures being used too often, which follows the practice of the Bundestag and the Bundesrat in Berlin.
	My five minutes are almost up, so perhaps I may just make a personal reference. The recommendations that I make here very briefly can be seen in much greater length in the final chapter of my book, Chief Whip, of which of course I gave a copy to the Library. I was delighted to hear just now from the librarian that it has been very frequently consulted.
	I remind your Lordships of a remark that was made to me by a colleague recently when we were talking about the lack of trust, belief and interest in Parliament today. He said that after the State Opening of Parliament, a friend of his had said to him quite seriously, "Do you always wear your ermine when you're in the House of Lords?". That is the image of this place that we have to improve.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Renton of Mount Harry. As he alluded, he was both a Chief Whip and the author of a book on Whips, which is an excellent provenance and pedigree for this debate. Like the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, I, too, shall be speaking as an individual.
	The report that we are debating is on very worthwhile issues, but it has a flavour of Procrustes about it in its serial curtailment of debate. It is an irony that your Lordships' House, in order to debate it today, has had to take the anti-Procrustean step of extending the amount of time for debate in order to accommodate us. Some in your Lordships' House will recall the parlour game of Telegrams. You are given a word. You take the individual letters which become the initial letters of the words of the telegram, which has to be relevant. An undergraduate contemporary of mine once caught the word "marble" as it fell from the lips of the umpire and upon the instant said:
	"Marbles Arriving Registered Baggage Love Elgin".
	Even with the extra time, five minutes to reflect on a 20-page report obliges telegraphy.
	First, the motivation. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, the mover of the Motion, whom we congratulate on his salience, is a former Minister in the Department of Health. I have always regretted that governments of different hues have rarely put into that department Ministers with a prior personal experience of effecting change in large organisations. I am similarly curious as to who in the noble Lord's committee was chosen for his capacity to change human behaviour; not so much individually—both the noble Lords, Lord Hogg and Lord Carter, could do that—as collectively, for that is what reform of your Lordships' House requires.
	In drafting this report, no one seems to have concentrated on the human reaction of other parties, encapsulated in the adage, "not invented here". Your Lordships' House has many virtues. One of the greatest is the quality of human relationships which extend across the Chamber and help to lubricate the eccentricities which no continental philosopher or draftsman would allow.
	Observers of Parliament have divided participants in this Palace into healers and warriors. The risk the tone of some of this report runs, at least outside the faithful of the party sponsoring it, is that of making warriors out of healers. If in a short speech I can quote only one example, I offer from the first paragraph of page 11 the phrase:
	"A new Parliament Act will need to incorporate the following:".
	Someone wishing to persuade rather than to instruct might have put that phrase in the subjunctive.
	When I visited Washington some 18 months ago, I noticed that manners in Congress had become tenser, sharper and less amiable. If by structural change we translate the manners of your Lordships' House into something more like today's Commons, we shall have lost more than we can imagine or afford.
	It is dangerous to draw analogies from other walks of life, but in my 18 years in the private sector before entering government, I always believed that the business deal most likely to succeed was the one that was a good deal for both sides. As my noble friend Lord Wakeham said, this report reads too much like a report designed to pursue a party rather than a general advantage.
	Of course there are excellent ideas in it. I particularly like "post-legislative scrutiny". The European Union would likewise be improved and would indeed become more popular if its plans and projects received more retrospective monitoring. But to go back to Procrustes, too much of the report takes a heavy legislative programme as something that we should take for granted. Perhaps the Home Office Minister who had to defend the concatenation of Home Office Bills under this administration to the post-legislative scrutiny of a future Select Committee might make the downside of that assumption even clearer.
	I genuinely hope that something comes of all this, but it will have a better chance if alliances are sought. To go back to the Whips' Office, where in more senses than one I began, the collection of prints and photographs of 19th century Chief Whips assembled at 12 Downing Street by the late Lord Cocks in the late 1970s had one particular characteristic. In the manner of that century, they were all signed. The Liberal ones signed themselves "Yours sincerely", while the Tories signed with "Yours faithfully". The authors of this document might ponder how, in similar mode, they would have signed their report if they are really serious about it coming to pass.

Lord Desai: My Lords, I owe my noble friend Lord Hunt and the group two apologies. First, I was not able to testify or take any part in the group's deliberations because at the time I was busy getting married. Secondly, I also apologise because, not having given my opinion before, I shall do so now. It will not be much to the liking of those who wrote the report.
	I do not agree with the proposition that composition can wait and procedural issues should be dealt with first. I have always thought that composition is important and that the majority, if not the total, of the House should be made up of elected Peers. I have never veered from that position, and I say that because what we call the "supremacy of the House of Commons" is a weakness of the constitution rather than a strength. A party commanding a substantial majority in the House of Commons can ride roughshod over the country because the Executive has far too much power in that place.
	I am a sort of reform junkie, but whenever I have spoken on reform of the Lords I have held that a strengthening of the House of Commons will be the only sensible check on the Executive. The House of Commons does not constitute a good enough check unless the party in power is falling apart in sex stories, quarrels and so on.
	But we cannot always rely on that, although human behaviour is a good guide. Therefore, let me add a further point. I have spent seven years on the opposition Benches and seven years on these Benches. I know what it is like to be in opposition. Time is the only weapon the Opposition have against the Government. It is easy to say, "Let's get the business done". Even though the party in power should get its business done, sometimes the business is not worth getting done. Someone has to say again and again, "It is just not worth doing this. You are wrong". I have debated Home Office and education Bills on that side and on this and I can tell your Lordships that three-quarters of them were not worth passing. We must say that.
	Unless we can say that to the Government and to the elected Chamber at length and in detail, as we do, we will not perform our function. Our function is not merely to sign a Bill off and send it across to the other place. Our function is to say, "Stop and think". That will be performed only if we have the time.
	I am impressed by what my noble friend Lord Carter said; that a 60-day rule for a Bill will strengthen the Opposition rather than weaken it. I will have to examine that view in detail before I am entirely convinced. Who knows, within my lifetime I may be on the opposition Benches—I am only 64—so I want to ensure that I will be happy there.
	Let me make one further comment about the report's interesting proposals on the two stages. The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, also agreed that one way to reform our procedures is to treat the House as a Committee of the other place. After Second Reading of a Bill in the other place, it will come to us immediately. We will conduct the full Committee work here and then report it back to the House of Commons. We will not have to go through all three stages in both Houses. We can improve time management. There is no doubt that we do much better Committee work than they do because they do not have the time, they are under the Whip and they have partisan considerations. In any future proposals, I would once again urge that on the House for consideration.
	I approve of there being a Speaker. I do not necessarily think that I should be the Speaker but I would like there to be one because our procedures are becoming far too loose. If we are going to preserve our freedoms, that would be a good thing to do.

Lord Norton of Louth: My Lords, in the time available, I want to make three quick points. First, like many noble Lords, I welcome the report and this debate as a contribution to the discussion on the role and functions of the second Chamber. As has been pointed out, too often debate on the reform of this House is focused exclusively on composition. That focus has tended to permit tunnel vision and lazy thinking. What is needed is to take a much broader view of the political system and of the place of the second Chamber in that system. That requires clear thought and reflection. Agreement on the role and functions of the second Chamber should be a prerequisite to deciding the composition.
	The report starts from a similar premise. I therefore disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Desai. I agree with the authors of the report that the second Chamber should complement the first, enabling the elected Chamber to maintain the direct electoral accountability that is a fundamental attribute of our political system. We are extremely fortunate in being able to maintain that accountability while having a second Chamber that adds value to the political process. It is a combination that few other countries can emulate.
	Secondly, I agree very much with the report on what the House of Lords should be able to do. The House should fulfil the functions listed in section 5 of the report. These are largely the tasks ascribed to the House at the moment. The report seeks to identify ways in which they can be fulfilled more effectively.
	I agree particularly with the contention that there is a need to improve the way we deal with legislation. I agree very much with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, that what we do we do well, but we could do it far better. Given the emphasis on our work as a Chamber of legislative scrutiny, I attach special importance to that.
	Thirdly, I think that on the actual reforms proposed the report is something of a curate's egg. I think it is particularly good when it is at its most innovative, and weakest where it is essentially derivative.
	I welcome the fresh thinking about how to deal with legislation. I would not necessarily endorse all the proposals in the report but I welcome the thinking that lies behind the recommendations. I accept that there is a case for introducing changes to how we scrutinise legislation. I am particularly keen to move away from the existing insular approach that is adopted by both Houses. We need to be able to provide greater opportunity for input from those outside Parliament.
	One of the recommendations in the report of the Constitution Committee, which I chaired, on Parliament and the Legislative Process—to which the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, has already referred—is that at some stage during its passage each Bill should be examined by an evidence-taking committee. We could do much more in drawing on informed opinion and making sure that each Bill is fit for purpose. If we start to think along these lines we will be able to produce more effective scrutiny.
	Like the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, I also welcome the report's comments on the need for post-legislative scrutiny—again a subject taken up in the report of the Constitution Committee. This at present constitutes something of a parliamentary black hole and, again, it is something that we need to pursue. Parliamentary responsibility for legislation should not be seen as ending once Royal Assent is given. We need mechanisms to check whether it has fulfilled its purpose.
	Where I think the report is less persuasive—indeed, where I disagree with it—is where it is essentially derivative, putting forward recommendations to emulate practices in the House of Commons. I am opposed to the concept of delayed Divisions. I think electing a Speaker and conferring powers on the occupant of the chair will transform the nature of the House, and not for the better.
	The changes will not simply involve enforcing rules and conventions. Far from bringing greater order into our proceedings, they have the potential to do the opposite. One transfers responsibility from everyone to a particular individual; one thus removes the obligation of responsibility on the generality of Members with attendant unhealthy consequences. I therefore disagree with my noble friend Lord Biffen. Time taken up with challenges to the Chair may occupy far more time than the occasional difficulties we encounter and which can be addressed by other means.
	In any event, these recommendations essentially run counter to the aim of the report, which is to carve out a second Chamber that complements rather than emulates the work of the first. I would therefore encourage the authors to pursue their blue sky thinking; basically to look upwards rather than along the Corridor.
	I welcome the report as a contribution to an important and necessary debate. I do not agree with all the recommendations and I would caution against rushing to legislation, but I am more than happy to engage with those responsible for it to explain why.

Lord Lucas: My Lords, I echo my noble friend's welcome for the report. I am absolutely delighted it has been produced. Like him, I disagree with about half of it, but let me start with the positive things.
	The first thing I really like about the report is that it is a Back-Bench production. This is our House; we ought to take a part in what happens to it and how it works. Far too often matters are dealt with by some kind of cabal. Our party in this House is the worst of all for that—being the only one that does not elect its leader—and the thought of our party appointing a similar committee is beyond hope. I wish we would change. We ought to be more democratic.

Noble Lords: Yes.

Lord Lucas: I am glad I have the right audience for this, my Lords.
	So I am particularly depressed that the report recommends that the Leader of the House convene a small working group to take our recommendations forward. That is entirely the wrong way round. We started by opening this discussion to the House; let us continue by opening it to the expertise which is all around the House. Let us have a process which all of us can participate in, own and contribute to, and which has a chance of arriving at consensus.
	I agree that we should not have a mechanism that might be blocked for party political reasons generated down the other end. Let us have something that we can all see. Let us not have this doubly undemocratic idea of a working group under the Leader of the House. A privilege committee is the worst thing that ought to happen; the Leader of the House ought to be beyond consideration.
	The second thing I welcome is the acknowledgement in the report that the House needs the power to defeat the Government and that the consequences of maintained defeat ought to be significantly inconvenient for the Government. That is the basis on which this House has any influence on what happens down the other end. That the report comes from the Government Benches is a very welcome antidote to the continued flow of calumnies from Mr Hain down the other end, which I enormously resent. So that gives me great pleasure.
	The report contains a number of interesting ideas which I would like taken forward and experimented with. We ought to seek to improve ourselves all the time; left to ourselves, we do. We have introduced a number of important innovations over the years. We ought to continue to do so and to look at ways in which we can conduct ourselves better and more effectively.
	I should be delighted to see some of these proposals taken forward, but it ought to be by way of experiment rather than by imagining that we can leap to some new way of doing things which will automatically be better. In particular, the idea of a time limit for legislation is misconceived. Delays are mostly due to the Government. The delay to the Constitutional Reform Bill came about because we were given an entirely unthought-through piece of legislation which had not been exposed to pre-legislative scrutiny or, indeed, any scrutiny. I think the Bill has benefited enormously from the delay we imposed on it. We have sought not to destroy it but to get it right, as the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, said. That is what this House should be about—taking the time to get it right. We must not filibuster. If we start filibustering, we will lose everything. I have never seen it happen to any significant degree and have no reason to think that it will.
	I like the idea of doing away with annual Sessions. Done right, having a Session for each Bill, as the noble Lord, Lord Carter, said, would enable us to put pressure, more consistently, on every Bill. We have very little control over Bills that start early. Something to enable us to put pressure on every Bill would be fine.
	I support what my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth said about finding ways of involving people from outside in every Bill. One of the great ways that Parliament has of reconnecting with the world outside is if we involve people and offer them access to our procedures. We also—dare I say it?—benefit enormously from that. I cannot think of a Bill that has suffered from that process. When the relevant expertise is not resident in this House and Back-Benchers have only a small desk and a telephone, with no kind of support, it is very difficult to be effective.
	The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, says that this is a package. Absolutely. His proposals for the way in which matters should operate within this House presume that Ministers will no longer be told, "Resist, resist, resist" and that it will not take the same question asked three times to get it into the heads of Ministers and officials that what we said first time was right.

Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, on 20 December, there was a very interesting intervention from the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, on the Constitutional Reform Bill. He effectively complained about the abuse of the Companion, and, in particular, misuse of Third Reading amendments, tedious repetition on Report and other matters. If one adds to that the long-winded supplementaries and breaches of guidance on length of speeches, it is quite clear that we have a totally undisciplined House. We all know that nothing is going to change, because Members ignore advice.
	The truth is, in my view, that the standards of conduct in the House of Commons are immeasurably higher than in the Lords. The selfish corralling of time by individual Members, which denies others speaking time, is a far greater sin than any noisy interventions in Commons debates. I therefore commend paragraph 12 in our report, as it further develops proposals in the report of the Lords Select Committee on the Speakership of the House by suggesting an element of regulation.
	Secondly, the use of repeated Divisions—three, four and even five of them—on issues of principle crucial to a Bill's passage, against a background of impending Prorogation, is an affront to the Commons. How can Peers, who do not knock on doors to win support for their views, insist on not simply amending but repeatedly overturning the decisions of those who face the brutal judgment of the electorate? The truth is that on occasions, particularly as we near Prorogation, the House becomes unruly—some say "stroppy". The fact is that it is losing its influence on the Commons. Indeed, as we have heard today, some Members wish to curtail its powers. I reject that view, as has our committee.
	We believe that we can draw on the tremendous experience in this House and the ability to analyse complex issues free of political rancour. Our recommendations for amendment to the Parliament Act, the 60-day or thereabout delay, carry-over and codification, would all make for a more efficient House of Lords. We believe that we can make this House better. I want a respected second Chamber that is listened to and influences events in the Commons, not by provocative delay and procedural ploy but by force of argument—a debate that pulls the teeth of ministerial argument, challenges Civil Service "resist" recommendations and obliges those who formulate public policy to sit up and listen.
	I have a very different view of the role of this House. I start from the premise that power and influence in the House of Lords should stem not from the Division Lobbies but in the accountability of Ministers and civil servants to Select Committees, Joint Committees and Standing Committees, where the Executive are questioned in detail. With that in mind, I positively commend our recommendations for increased use of prior scrutiny. I have sat on two of those committees; the most interesting observation that I can report is to watch civil servants, who have worked tirelessly on a Bill, wriggle in their seats as their handiwork is taken apart by a Joint Committee, with the result in the case of the Corruption Bill that the Bill disappeared from the legislative timetable because it was badly drafted, while in the case of the Charities Bill, a well-drafted Bill has been welcomed by this House. That proves that the system works.
	Finally, if the remit is to get Ministers and civil servants to sit up and listen, what better than our proposals for deliberation on legislation? Gone would be the old Second Reading with its, if I might say, too often boring debates, which civil servants invariably ignore, and in would come the new, questioning, deliberative stage, which would hold Ministers and civil servants to account.
	The whole report is exciting, I hope that it is implemented, and I compliment my noble friend on the excellent work that he did as chairman of our committee.

Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I speak only to the recommendations as to the Speakership at Question Time in paragraph 12 of the report, which takes a step forward from the report of your Lordships' Select Committee, which was based on the assumption that the office of the Lord Chancellor would be abolished, as was the Government's intention.
	It is conceded by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that the extant regime shall continue unless otherwise resolved by your Lordships on substantive debate. But is not the proposed policy—commitment to an elected Speakership—based upon a fundamental misconception, that such is the only way to ensure self-regulation at Question Time? Has this ill-conceived preconception inhibited timeous intervention by the Leader of the House and permitted disorder?
	Has the report given any consideration as to the merits of retention of the Lord Chancellor as Speaker, or retention and restoration of the extant regime albeit with adjustments, an argument deployed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cooke of Thorndon, when writing in the Law Quarterly Review and when speaking on the Constitutional Reform Bill, in a speech to which the noble and learned Lord paid tribute?
	In the course of that Bill, the status as Keeper of the Great Seal, Membership of your Lordship's House, legal qualification, a constitutional role in Cabinet, to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cooke of Thorndon, refers, were discussed as regards retention of the office. Unfortunately, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cooke of Thorndon, who would have wished to attend today, cannot do so. But writing in the Law Quarterly Review, in January 2003, he wrote that the Lord Chancellor's,
	"presence on the Woolsack has symbolic significance underlying the history and unity of the United Kingdom, and the origins of this House as the Curia Regis".
	In his speech on this Bill on 11 October 2004, to which I have just referred, the noble and learned Lord said:
	"What is the greatest legal office in the world? Before the Bill was conceived, there could have been little doubt that it was that of the Lord Chancellor . . . His . . . high status has been an enduring symbol of the commitment of the United Kingdom to the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary . . . because he was a senior Member of the House of Lords and of Cabinet—an illustrious and universally respected lawyer who was able to speak with authority for all that the law represents . . . a kind of guarantor or watchdog of legality at the heart of the constitution".
	He continued:
	"This great office is a distinctive product of the United Kingdom's evolution. It carries a prestige which is irreplaceable . . . In international eyes".
	He said in conclusion:
	"The advantages of the office of Lord Chancellor"—
	as Speaker—
	"are partly psychological, yet they are real and internationally resonant. Some administrative adjustments may now be advisable, but rather than throw away this special legacy, Parliament should surely take pride in it and build on it as essentially one of the highest lawyer's offices in the land, with powers of significance".—[Official Report, 11/10/04; col. 38.]

Lord Parekh: My Lords, I welcome the report and thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and his colleagues for their efforts in putting it together. It contains some extremely interesting ideas that—I very much hope that they will be tried on an experimental basis—if adopted would make your Lordships' House even more efficient and effective.
	Some of these interesting ideas have already been mentioned. I therefore want to spend my next four minutes making a few points either by way of elaboration or reservation. First, the problems that the report highlights, and which it tries to address, are not at all unique to your Lordships' House; they are to be encountered in many other countries such as France, Germany, the United States, Canada and elsewhere. I am therefore a little surprised that the report does not draw on their experiences and the ways in which they have tried to tackle these problems—problems of how to avoid repetitive speeches or the same amendments being made at Report and at Third Reading. Many of these problems have been faced by other jurisdictions and we might benefit from the experiments that they have undertaken.
	Secondly, the report makes the mistake of separating functions and powers from the composition of the House. It assumes the primacy of the other place, the House of Commons, largely because it assumes that your Lordships' House will remain an appointed House. If your Lordships' House were to be fully elected, or elected on a different basis, or composed in some different way, its relations with the other place would need to be rethought and the whole notion of the primacy of the House of Commons would have to be radically reconsidered.
	Thirdly, a reconciliation Standing Joint Committee of the two Houses to resolve persistent disagreements would in my view be unlikely to work. It exists in other countries, including India, for example, where it has created more problems than it has solved. How would such a committee be composed? How would it decide matters? Would it decide the matter itself, or would it arrive at a consensus and refer it to the two Houses to decide? Either course of action is fraught with difficulties.
	Fourthly, the report concentrates almost entirely on legislation. Nearly a sixth of our time is devoted to debates, including on Unstarred Questions. Very often I, as a new boy, have wondered what the purpose of those debates is as they do not seem to influence either government policy or legislation, and we do not have periodic reports on what has been done by the Government in response to the suggestions made in those debates. Could we not find some way of integrating those debates into debates on legislation? For example, we have important debates on Second Reading. There is no reason why Second Reading could not be integrated with the debates that we have on Wednesdays. That sort of thing occurs in some countries and we might benefit from adopting that process.
	Fifthly, as we are talking about conventions and procedures I want to make a simple and rather elementary suggestion that relates to matters which have often puzzled me. It is a convention to address this House as "my Lords", which is what I and other noble Lords do. However, we do not have only Lords; we also have Ladies. Either the Ladies are subsumed under "Lords" or they are ignored. In either case it is either discourteous or sexist and I am surprised that the lady Members of your Lordships' House have not raised an objection to that. I am not trying to instigate trouble; I am simply suggesting that to an outsider this is an obvious oddity.
	I refer to a second conceptual quirk. Your Lordships' House is part of Parliament and yet your Lordships are not allowed to call themselves Members of Parliament— that designation belongs to people in the other place. In the past four or five years since I have been here I have noted about seven conceptual or terminological oddities. It would help your Lordships and those who have to explain your Lordships' procedures to people outside, including those in other countries, if we were to find some way of rationalising them.

Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I rather think it would be unwise to follow the noble Lord on some of the things that he was just talking about. My noble friend Lord Wakeham once answered a Question on that matter, and I refer the noble Lord to that Answer, which I am certain was a total clarification.
	I am not against reform of the House of Lords and I am not against reform of the procedures of this House; but I doubt very much whether it is right for these proposals to come from one political wing of the party. I was even more troubled to read that apparently the proposals that we are considering, whatever their merits, will find their way into the Labour Party manifesto at the next election. Procedures of one House of Parliament or another have no place in a party manifesto. They should be decided by Parliament itself, and in relation to this House, by your Lordships. It is therefore wrong for a group of parliamentarians to take a political stance on these issues, as appears to have been the case on this occasion. That is not to say that the proposals brought forward by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and his colleagues do not have some merit; they may have some merit, although I have not yet been able to detect much.
	I start from the position that the role of this House, like the role of the House of Commons, is to hold Ministers to account. Anything that is done to our procedures to make it more difficult for the Back Benches in particular to do that ought to be considered with the greatest circumspection and very likely not accepted. Like several noble Lords, I fear greatly that the main thrust—which may not be the intent but is certainly the effect of the proposals brought forward by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt—is to make it easier for governments to get their business. I agree with my noble friend Lord Jopling, who is not in his place, that in the end the government are entitled to get their business. Yes—in the end. But that does not mean that they are entitled to get it straightaway. They must argue it through this House, and they must listen to noble Lords who move amendments and who may go on moving amendments. They must listen to the minority views of those on the Back Benches whose views may not find a majority in favour. In the end, those views must be heard, listened to and taken into account. It is against that yardstick that these proposals generally fail.
	The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, complained that the House is nowadays a more assertive place. As my noble friend Lord Jopling also said, that is perhaps a fairly direct result of the departure of most of the hereditary Peers three or so years ago. It is not necessarily a bad thing for noble Lords to be more assertive—it is a change, and I do not much welcome that change—but that is a personal view, and others may take a different one.
	I do not want to comment on all the proposals in the paper brought forward by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, but I am particularly against fixed times for Bills. I do not like the sound of that, because it sounds like it is a way of dragooning Bills, or getting more Bills into the programme, and we do not want that from either side. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, shakes his head. I dare say that these are worthy proposals, worthily intended at least, but I do not welcome that.
	The proposals refer to "reconciliation machinery". What is the point of "reconciliation machinery" if in the end the view of the House of Commons will prevail? They only have to resist any reconciliation, knowing full well that sooner or later the Bill will go through in any event. Voting in prime time is something to which the House of Commons has come recently and not very attractively. I am also opposed to carry-over. I am opposed to Leader's groups, as I have mentioned before. Leader's groups are a way of dragooning a view in the Lords against the views and wishes of the Back Benches, who are generally unrepresented or only minimally represented on such things. They are not a good idea.
	The effect of these proposals, if not their purpose, is to facilitate the passage of government legislation in a way that I truly regret. I am not against reform of the proceedings of your Lordships' House and, frankly, I am not against reform of the composition of your Lordships' House. But that must be by parliamentary consensus—by agreement with all the parties—and not by unilateral imposition.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I, too, thank the Hunt committee for its useful work, which is certainly nothing if not provocative. I, like many other speakers starting with the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, find the proposals too managerialist and controlling. I must confess that, in the six or seven years that I have been here, I have been amazed at how well this Chamber has worked. It seems to me that it has extraordinary flexibility and good will. I honestly believe that, in the proceedings and procedures of this House, we cannot take any lessons from the other place, which very often churns over Bills and passes them to us with large parts completely unscrutinised.
	I want to concentrate on an issue touched on by the noble Lords, Lord Williamson and Lord Renton, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd—that is, over-legislation. It is a theme that I have pursued since I came into this place, and I believe it is the fundamental challenge that we as parliamentarians face in terms of the resolution that we are debating.
	I wandered into the Library just before the debate. The latest bound volumes for 2003 contain 13,407 pages of new legislative material. I put it to the House that that amount of legislation—ever more complex, ever less consulted-upon and ever less participated-in legislation—is an unsustainable level of law-making. It represents 6,000 to 10,000 pages of additional law every year that we sit here and I believe that that bloated corpus of legislation is sinking under the weight of its own obesity.
	Such a volume is utterly beyond our society and culture to cope with or digest. Even we in this House, as I observe year by year, are fazed by it, with more and more of us feeling that we are not up to engaging with these horrifically complicated and vastly voluminous pieces of legislation. If it begets that in us, what effect does it have on the population at large? It gives a generalised sense of incompetence and of being put upon by the state, and it induces a profoundly serious democratic crisis. I think it is the root of so much of the democratic malaise that we and others observe. It is a form of dry rot which imperils the quality and character of our society.
	Comparable nations legislate at a much lesser rate. I looked at the statistics for some European countries and found that we are legislating at two and three times the rate of other countries. There must be something to be learnt from that.
	So, before we do anything to widen the legislative superhighway, as I believe some of the committee's proposals would, we should stop and thoroughly and impartially investigate the status quo—for example, the circumstances giving rise to this state of affairs; the role of disproportionate Commons majorities, party whipping and patronage; and the degree of real constraint exerted on the Executive by Parliament. We should look at the effects of hyper-legislation in terms of our own culture, the disaffection and frustration that it begets, the overheads to society in terms of the constant resort to specialists, lawyers, accountants, consultants and heaven knows what.
	I believe that there are deeper consequences of over-legislation. It penalises the poor and the unselfconfident; it rigidifies the society of which we are part; and it discourages trust, fair dealing and common sense in favour of black letter law. So, before anything, I urge that we establish a Royal Commission to investigate these intractable but vital matters.

The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, it is now almost impossible to confer on anyone that which was conferred on me: to be one of those Peers who was elected to remain in this House. It is a particular honour, as I believe that members of my family have been in one or both Houses since the 14th century. When I finally go, that will be the last of the Onslows. There may be great roaring cheers, but it will be a matter of regret to myself in view of the enormous honour bestowed on me.
	Since the 1999 Act, this House has become much stroppier. The point of Parliament is to be stroppy; it is to hold the government to account; it is to stop the government getting all their business through. The myth that governments must always get their business is surely wrong. I am not suggesting to your Lordships that we go back to the situation in which it was possible for Pitt to lose a Bill to reform the House of Commons or to abolish the slave trade, which were major planks of government policy, but I do not see why every single Bill should get through Parliament just because it has been churned out of a government machine.
	Considering the fact that we are now responsible for approximately only 40 per cent of our own law, a percentage which is diminishing all the time—the rest is handled in Brussels—and considering the amount of legislation that the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, has said that we pass, it is a horrendous amount.
	When the Constitutional Reform Bill came to this House, it was sloppily thought out and back-of-an envelope stuff; it was appallingly bad. The announcement was made on the television and against the Government's will and against the silver-tongued eloquence of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor—thank goodness he will continue to be the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor—your Lordships voted to send the Bill to a Select Committee. What happened? Parliament worked. The Government had to come to a packed House and argue their points one by one. I had no idea which way the Divisions would go. That is what Parliament should do.
	I believe that the committee of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has gone seriously wrong because it has produced an apparatchik idea of what your Lordships should do. It makes the Government's job easier. My job is to make the Government's job more difficult. That applies to my noble friends if, peradventure, they should get back into power on 5 May, or whenever. I regard it as an honour to make the government of whatever party is in power squirm.
	The other day I happened to say to a Chief Whip in another place that if, by any chance, there were to be a change of government the next time round, the House of Lords would be extraordinarily difficult to a Conservative government. I said, "I relish the prospect", to which he replied, "I don't think you need worry about that because I'm going to send lots of loyal people who will do as they're told, like Archie Hamilton, to the House", which made me laugh and filled me with a certain amount of dread.
	I still do not want any House to be a servant of the government. My noble friend Lord Renton of Mount Harry and the noble Lord, Lord Desai, said what I believe is essential about the composition: the majority of Members must be elected. We will then have legitimacy and authority and then we can make the government's life more difficult. If we make it more difficult, the Commons will tend to follow suit, because it will not want to be picked up by the Lords. That is how Parliament should work. That is what our forbears in 1688 wanted the Magna Carta to do. At the moment in the words of the Dunning resolution of 1780—slightly paraphrased—the influence of the Crown has increased, is increasing and ought to be diminished. At the moment, the influence of the executive has increased, is increasing and must be diminished.

Lord McNally: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, on introducing this debate with his usual fluidity and reasonableness. As a result he has provoked a debate of high-quality speeches and a certain high-mindedness, which fills me with a certain trepidation because I fear that I shall lower the tone a little by trying to put some of these proposals in a political context as far as the next steps are concerned.
	My approach is greatly influenced by having taken part as a member of the joint Labour Party/Liberal Democrat study group on constitutional reform prior to the 1997 general election. That committee was known as the Cook/Maclennan committee after its distinguished co-chairmen.
	It is interesting that so much of Cook/Maclennan has been enacted and that is a tribute to the thoroughness of the preparatory work done by that committee and the cross-party nature of its deliberations.
	Indeed, it was only when the Labour Party acquired the hubris of office and started to go it alone that the momentum of constitutional change faltered. So let me say at once that we on these Benches believe that the kind of constitutional reform which sticks is best carried forward on the basis of consultation and cross-party consensus.
	We were able to do that in 1996 because at that time we and the Labour Party believed that both Parliament and government were in need of radical modernisation and reform. We saw the need to strengthen the powers of Parliament against an over-mighty executive. We saw the need to curb the powers of patronage with its corrupting influence on our political life.
	That, in some ways, makes this evening's debate so sad. Faced with the real challenge to our democracy referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, among others, the Labour Party responds with a paper which, while containing many interesting ideas, has an underlying theme which curbs and restricts the powers of this House. Its claim to do that is based on the wholly bogus idea that the House has abused its powers in recent years. The reality is that the Government have continued to get their business.
	The Leader of the House, the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, with her usual courtesy, came and told me personally why government business prevented her being here tonight. However, in an interview in the Daily Telegraph printed on Monday, she gave us a taster of what she would have said. The headline tells it all:
	"Labour back-pedals on reform of the Lords".
	The cat is out of the bag.
	"Asked if the long-awaited plan on future composition would be in the manifesto for the election expected on May 5, she said: 'No. I think there is still more work to be done'".
	Thus, after two terms of Labour government with landslide majorities, a 100 year-old commitment to democratic reform is laid to rest, just at the moment when the Conservative Party, hitherto one of the chief barriers to democratic reform, espouses the idea. It is a rum old world.
	Instead, we are promised by the noble Baroness, Lady Amos—and here again I quote from her Daily Telegraph interview—that there was an urgent need to clarify and "codify" the powers of the Lords.
	Suddenly, the idea that this paper is a spontaneous outpouring of Labour Back-Bench initiative takes on a more sinister hue. For, as the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, has pointed out, if what is on offer is that radical and democratic reform is to be replaced by a prudent pruning of the Lords' powers in favour of government convenience, then I think we have a difficulty on our hands.
	Let me make the position of these Benches crystal clear. If the merry wheeze on which we are embarked is that the Labour Party will use the ideas in this paper to justify lines in its manifesto curbing the powers of the House of Lords, then, if re-elected, it starts citing the Salisbury convention to force those changes through the next Parliament, I have to say to the Government that such a strategy will be fought every inch of the way by these Benches.
	As the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, has pointed out, we face the prospect that so distorted has our electoral system become that the next government could have a three-figure majority in the House of Commons on the basis of receiving less than 20 per cent of those entitled to vote. What the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said about using the Salisbury convention then becomes, frankly, disturbing. The Salisbury convention was designed to protect the non-Conservative government from being blocked by a built-in hereditary-based majority in the Lords. It was not designed to provide more power for what the late Lord Hailsham rightly warned was an elective dictatorship in another place against legitimate check and balance by this second Chamber.
	Unless changes in the powers of the Lords are accompanied by real reform to strengthen the democratic legitimacy of both Houses, along with a strengthening of the powers of both Houses to call the executive to account, the Lords will be right to resist any piecemeal and arbitrary attempts to limit its powers.
	The paper calls for streamlining, better focus and codification of conventions. In doing so, it shows a disregard for the realities of parliamentary life. What it offers is a Chief Whip's charter for a quieter life. I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, that a living parliament should not be an easy place for Ministers or governing parties. The strictures that,
	"the House should become more disciplined and abide by its rules and procedures",
	were endorsed by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours. I therefore found his speech a little disappointing because, frankly, I have always thought of him as one of the great parliamentarians of his generation, and this is not a charter for parliamentarians.

Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way?

Lord McNally: No, my Lords.

Noble Lords: Oh!

Lord McNally: All right, my Lords.

Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, is not the essence of the noble Lord's case based on the fact that the Liberals have immense power in the House of Lords? They hold the balance of power in a way that is totally disproportionate to their membership numbers in the House of Lords.

Lord McNally: No, my Lords. My case is based on a belief and a love of Parliament and parliamentary democracy. If the noble Lord really believes that a government in the other place with a three-figure majority based on 20 per cent of the popular vote will not undermine the credibility of our Parliament, he disappoints me greatly.
	I can think of nothing worse than further rules and conventions on our behaviour. This House self-regulates itself well, and the odd eruption is the sign of life. The noble Lord, Lord Parekh, was right to say that we should look at other examples. An eminent Canadian told me recently that the Canadian House of Commons had so hobbled itself with rules of procedure and time limits on speeches, it had virtually driven all life and serious debate from its Chamber.
	The noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, asked me what I believed in. Parliament should be like a mediaeval fair, with its arm wrestlers, acrobats, knife throwers and contortionists.

Noble Lords: Oh!

Lord McNally: I can point them all out, my Lords. It should be lively, irreverent and, as the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, indicated, just a little dangerous.
	I shall close on a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral. If you ask for a memorable moment in this Chamber, for me it was listening to a mortally ill Lord Chief Justice, Lord Taylor, speaking about the threat to civil liberties posed by a Bill proposed by the then Home Secretary, Michael Howard. The Labour Benches cheered him that night. But this House has to be a House for all seasons—for government and for opposition. This paper is too biased towards the interests of government.
	In the right spirit and in the right context, many of the ideas in the report could and should be considered. But the spirit has to be that of a genuine search for cross-party consensus, and the context must be that of a real and urgent modernisation of our political and parliamentary system, to re-link it to the political process of the people whom we serve.

Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, that speech certainly stirred up this debate. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, for initiating the debate. Like many noble Lords, I enjoyed reading the report, perhaps at no point more than when I got to the second page and it talked about this new House testing the boundaries of some of the conventions.
	It is hardly surprising, as has been said many times during this debate, that there has been uncertainty surrounding the future of this House over the past few years. The noble Baroness, Lady Jay, a former Leader of the House, said in 1999, when the hereditary Peers were expelled, that this House would have a new legitimacy—and as the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, observed, a massive influx of new Peers have come in. My noble friend Lord Onslow referred to the "stroppiness" of the House. All such matters are true and not surprising: there is an air of uncertainty due to what happened in 1999.
	I, too, join those who have said that it is right to put an examination of powers and, to some extent, procedure, before looking at composition. I am sorry that I disagree with my noble friend Lord Jopling on that. I remember saying as much in 1998; namely, that we should find out what this House is for and what we want it to do before we look at who should sit in it. As the noble Lord, Lord McNally, said, on Monday there was the strongest possible signal in the newspapers that the Government were beginning to feel the same way. That is an interesting change and, perhaps, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will comment on that. I look forward to his speech. The noble and learned Lord has obviously thought carefully about this paper and I hope that he will tell the House specifically which of these recommendations he favours and which he does not.
	I cannot give this report the warm reception that, no doubt, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, and his noble friends would have liked. One reason for that is that I do not detect anything in it that would strengthen the House. That was a missed opportunity. I know that perhaps the intention was to try to do that, but that has not happened in practice.
	The group was highly experienced—a total of 28 years on the Front Bench, 50 years in the House of Commons, although just 34 on the Back Benches here. But it had one major weakness. As my noble friends Lord Wakeham and Lord Trefgarne said, the group's members were all from one party—the party of the Government. That may be why so many noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord McNally, have found that its ideas smacked too much of the convenience of government. I agree.
	For my part, change of that type in this House, or any other, should be made on the basis of cross-party consensus. The noble Lord, Lord Hoyle, agreed with that, but gave the impression that there had been little change in the past few years. When we looked at procedure under our previous Leader of the House, Gareth Williams, and in the recent review, ably led by the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, the Leader of the House, we agreed to change on a cross-party basis. Frankly, that is the only way to proceed; it is the way that has led to massive changes.
	My noble friend Lord Lucas did not recognise that almost every year we experiment in changing our procedures. I take as an example the simple issue of Grand Committees—although I could have chosen the example, so ably given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, about advisory time limits on Second Readings. His example showed how those limits were not helping scrutiny. Grand Committees are pretty unpopular on our side of the House, but they give noble Lords on the Government side what they want—not having, in the immortal phrase of the noble Lord, Lord Warner,
	"to sit around waiting for the Opposition to play the voting game".
	Well I never!
	So in a spirit of co-operation we have agreed to many changes. In the first three Sessions after 1997, 20 Bills went to Grand Committee, taking 79.5 hours over 28 days. In the past three Sessions, 34 Bills have gone to Grand Committee, taking 487 hours over 134 days. That is a six-fold increase in time and a major change in our procedures.
	After those changes, the Labour Party is back for more. They seek to reduce votes at Third Reading, to restrict timing of votes, and even to adopt the Commons procedure of deferred votes. But what are the facts? In the past two full Sessions before the experiment with wider use of Grand Committees, 22 per cent of Divisions were at Third Reading. In the three Sessions since the experiment, 23 per cent of Divisions have been at Third Reading. I sense no abuse there. Of course, if the House cannot vote in Committee, there will, in time, be strain on later stages. The proportion of all Divisions in Committee dropped from 30 per cent to 20 per cent. I would oppose a ban on votes in Committee, deliberative stages or a limit on times when Divisions could take place.
	As my noble friend Lord Onslow said, it is not the job of this House to be convenient to governments or to government Peers. It is the job of this House to test, challenge, scrutinise and, if necessary, to ask the government to think again. If we never did that, we would really have no purpose. No government like it. I did not like it when I sat where the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, sits, but the paradox is that governments are often the better for it.
	Many of us may wish that we had listened to this House more about, for example, the way in which the community charge was introduced. Many noble Lords opposite may wish that the Government had listened to the concerns of this House on 24-hour drinking in the legislation that we passed a couple of Sessions ago.
	I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, that there is far too much legislation. No one out there understands it—the people who are most affected by it do not understand it—and how can they possibly keep up with this massive amount of new legislation?
	The report referred to deteriorating behaviour, abuses and the need for order as justifying a Speaker to foster discipline. I cannot help thinking that if the first Martian were to arrive on this planet and look at this House and the House of Commons he would not have very much difficulty in deciding which House has more abuse and disorder. We have to get this in proportion.
	Anyway, I do not think that a Speaker sitting on the Woolsack would use the powers necessarily better than the Leader of the House. In any case, they are the House's powers vested in the Leader: they are not the Leader's powers. But I say to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell- Savours, that we should improve the enforcement rather than change the enforcer.
	The report states that we should lose the power to annul a statutory instrument, because we used it in 2000. That was part of stretching the boundaries of the conventions for the reasons that I have given. However, in 1994, this House formally resolved that it should retain the unfettered right to reject regulations. The Conservative government at the time did not immediately move to abolish that right.
	Incidentally, I am not convinced that that convention is a convention of the House. I think that it is a convention between the two main parties. I do not think that it has ever been agreed to by the Liberal Democrats, and it could not be agreed to by the Cross Benches. It has been surprisingly robust over the decades. If it is used, that power should be used most sparingly. When we now have legislation such as the Civil Contingencies Act on the statute book, it is important for this House to preserve at least the possibility of using that power.
	Many noble Lords have mentioned the experience of the Constitutional Reform Bill; that sending it to a Select Committee was the right thing to do, as none other than the noble and learned Lord has accepted. He said that it was wise and the right thing to do. Of course, I agree with him.
	I am instinctively against codification and firm rules. Had we had such rules, the Government would have lost the planning Act last Session that the usual channels agreed to save by using an exceptional and unprecedented Motion. We should remember that another place has plenty of codes, but it has precious few freedoms from government control.
	Our flexible approach to Grand Committees proves that we on this side of the House do not oppose change. But I urge the House, with all seriousness, to hold to the free procedures and powers that we have, which have enabled us to become the most successful revising Chamber that I very much believe we are.
	Perhaps I may finish with a warning that is really an echo of what the noble Lord, Lord McNally, said a few moments ago. We should resist uncompromisingly any attempt to increase the scope or bite of the Parliament Acts or to introduce in this place the kind of time limits and guillotine Motions that have been the ruin of another place.
	If we are to change our procedures, it should be done as we have always done it: by consultation and discussion cross-party and not on the basis of a single-party proposal. I trust that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will agree at least to that.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I start by saying a few words in tribute to Lord Aberdare, who passed away on Sunday. Lord Aberdare had a long and proud record of service. He served in the Welsh Guards throughout the Second World War and later had a distinguished parliamentary career. He entered this House in 1957 and served as Chairman of Committees, Minister of State in the Department of Health and as Deputy Speaker. Indeed, I am sure that Lord Aberdare would have welcomed this debate, having himself chaired a group which looked at how to improve the conduct of business in the House. His dedication to public service was matched only by his enthusiasm for tennis and his support of the Tennis and Racquets Association. Along with all noble Lords, I feel his loss deeply. On behalf of the whole House, I should like to pass on our condolences.
	This has been a quite remarkable debate. Among other things, it has been marked by the quality of the debate. We have had the benefit of hearing from the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham. I agree with my noble friend Lord Hunt that the noble Lord produced what was one of the finest Royal Commission reports on what to do with the House of Lords. We heard the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, whose contribution to public life has been huge. The noble Lord, Lord Jopling, who is a former Chief Whip in another place, made a significant contribution. The noble Lord, Lord Biffen, was Leader of the House in another place. He delivered an absolutely excellent speech. We heard from the noble Lord, Lord Williamson of Horton, who has experience of other forms of parliament—I say that advisedly because I recognise that it is a rather sensitive issue. My noble friend Lord Carter was the Chief Whip in this place and has unrivalled experience. Finally, I turn to my noble friend Lord Hunt, who made such a valuable contribution to our debate.
	Only three speeches were political in tone. I turn first to that of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. He indulged in a vicious attack on his own party, by which we were deeply and profoundly surprised. I have always thought of them as a bit of a cabal, but I was very glad to hear that confirmed by the noble Lord.
	Some may remember that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, was formerly an apparatchik of the first water for my noble friend Lord Callaghan when he was Prime Minister from 1978 to 1979. I do not remember the noble Lord, Lord McNally, saying at the time how much he admired the Lords for knocking back bits of the legislation of the Labour government of the day. Can you imagine the noble Lord, Lord McNally, delivering that impassioned plea if there had not been such a terrible misunderstanding in 1983 with the electorate in Stockport? If the people of Stockport had maintained their faith—which I agree would have been difficult for them—the noble Lord, Lord McNally, would be railing not on behalf of the interests of the Lords but on behalf of the interests of the Commons. So I would take what the noble Lord, Lord McNally, says with a pinch of salt.
	However, the noble Lord made one important point that is very significant to our debate. He appeared to be saying that the Liberal Democrats intend to abrogate the Salisbury convention. That is what I thought he said. I thought that that was his suggestion, although I may have misunderstood him. I hope that that is the case.

The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, all I want to say to the noble and learned Lord is this. Has he not heard of the sinner that repenteth, and that there is more room? Is it not lovely to see someone like the noble Lord, Lord McNally, behaving like a parliamentarian and not as an apparatchik? Well done him.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, yes, I have heard that sinners can repent. I simply urge noble Lords to look at the noble Lord, Lord McNally, with some degree of scepticism. That is all.

Noble Lords: Oh!

Lord McNally: My Lords, perhaps I may say to all noble Lords that the road to Damascus is a very pleasant journey. On the Salisbury convention, perhaps I may give a little warning to the Government Front Bench because I can see how their minds are working. I do not think that I was wrong in my interpretation. The Salisbury convention was for a different House of Lords at a different time. We may well have to examine the convention, but if this Government think that on 20 per cent of the popular vote and a couple of lines in a manifesto they can emasculate this House of Lords, that is a matter that we would take to the hustings.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, if the noble Lord takes it to the hustings, I hope that he will abide by them. If the hustings say they want it, I would have thought it right not for the Lords to stop it, but to give effect to the House of Commons. I do not understand why the noble Lord, Lord McNally, says that he would take it to the hustings and then ignore the result. With the greatest respect, his position has no logic to it whatever.

Lord McNally: My Lords—

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I think I must get on.

Lord McNally: My Lords—

Noble Lords: Order!

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I think I must get on. Like everyone else, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Hunt on procuring the debate. I also congratulate him on the quality of his contribution to it and to the report of the committee he chaired. Everyone is right to say that a group of Labour Back Benchers produced it, but the right thing to do is to look at it on its merits and deal with each individual case. For example, the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, rightly dealt with the issue of whether it was too government-minded not on the basis of simply addressing those who had produced it but by going through the detail. That is a fair way, rather than the approach of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, who looked as though he was going to say something detailed on it and then, sadly, never did.
	It is important to emphasise that the Hunt report is about the functions, powers, procedures and conventions of the House and not its composition. Although there are plainly relationships between composition and powers, it was right that our debate primarily focused on that.
	The starting points on which most of us, though not all because of the position expressed by the noble Lord, Lord McNally, are agreed are, first, that a credible and effective second Chamber is vital to the health of our democracy. Secondly, the cornerstone of our democracy, pace the noble Lord, Lord McNally, is the primacy of the elected House of Commons. Thirdly, the second Chamber should complement, not rival or undermine, the House of Commons. Fourthly, its main functions should be detailed examination of legislation and holding the Government to account. The ability effectively to hold the Government to account and to examine legislation involves the power to propose amendments to the Commons and to delay legislation to ensure the proper consideration of its proposed amendments and the holding of Ministers to account. We all agree that that is one of its prime purposes.
	Fifthly, over many years the House of Lords has by convention exercised restraint on the use of its nominal powers. These conventions, alongside the Parliament Act, have guided and determined its relationship with the Commons. Sixthly, the Lords must have some degree of flexibility, but without ultimately challenging the primacy of the Commons. I agree with my noble friend Lord Hunt's proposition that uncertainty about the functions, powers and procedures of the House are ultimately bad for the House and bad for the good functioning of our parliamentary democracy. But I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, that there needs to be flexibility.
	In my view, the noble Lord's speech indicated the tension: the Government are entitled to have their business; the Opposition are entitled to make as much fuss as they can. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, and most people who have been involved with this House for some time will agree, there must be some limits within which anarchy in the UK as the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, would propose, is to be conducted. If you do not have some limits, you are not able to deliver the first proposition of the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, that ultimately the Government are entitled to have their business.
	The public should know what the powers of the second Chamber are. The composition of this House has changed fundamentally over the past 60 years. We have seen the change from a House dominated by hereditary Peers to one where almost all Members of the House are life Peers. We have also seen the change of the House from one traditionally dominated by one party to one in which the parties are more evenly balanced. Even after the last two elections, this Government still have only 29 per cent of the Members of this House. The balance in the membership of the House is likely to be a permanent feature. It means that the role of the House in the passage of legislation is now much more significant and it will continue to be so.
	We should recognise that this is the House where there is real leverage in relation to legislation—apart from the Government. In so far as people are talking about the House being more assertive and having more power, it already has it. We must realise that we are in a totally new situation; not one that changed because of 1999 and the removal of the hereditaries, although that had an accelerating effect, but it has been happening since 1958. We should recognise that we are in a new place and that there needs to be a look at the powers and functions of the House in that context alone, quite separately from any other compositional changes there might be.
	The effect of the change in the composition of the House makes it all the more important that the House should have clarity about its functions and transparency about its powers so that it can use those powers with confidence. I do not think it is right to talk about reducing those powers but rather about ensuring that what we all conceive as the role of the House is reflected properly in the way that it operates.
	We should also take note of two particular comments made earlier in the debate. First, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, said that this is a serious House and wants its affairs conducted in an orderly way. That does not mean that it has to be a House that is very pro-government but that it is a House where the people who work here as Members of the House believe that there is some degree of sense and order about the way in which it conducts its affairs.
	The second point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, who drew our attention to the reduction in the number of people voting in general elections. All of us—not only Members of this House but all of those involved in the parliamentary system—have an obligation to retain the confidence of the public. The more confidence they have in us, the more they will be prepared to vote in those elections.
	Perhaps I may now turn to the detail of the report of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. I am not about to announce that the Government propose to adopt all—or, indeed, any—of the proposals in the paper. We said that we would return to the question of reform of your Lordships' House in the context of our manifesto, and I do not intend to trail any of our ideas today.
	The Government agree with the report's premise that, in looking at the contribution which your Lordships' House makes to the legislative process, it is important to look at that process as a whole. The House is part of a bicameral Parliament. It will work best if it is consciously complementary to the work of the House of Commons. It does not seem to be unreasonable to suggest, as the report does, that changes to the rules under which the House operates might be in order even if a major part of the end result is to improve the efficiency with which the other place can operate.
	So, for example, the proposal that the Parliament Acts should be applied to Bills which start in this House should not be dismissed out of hand as a sinister attempt to curtail the rights of this House. We should rather look at what it might imply for the management of business through both Houses over the course of a whole Session.
	The realistic prospect that the Parliament Acts might need to be invoked on a Bill arises in most cases only right at the end of its parliamentary passage, when the issues on which the two Houses cannot agree are narrowed down to a few contentious issues. At that point, how much difference does it make in which House the Bill started?
	As the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, once again rightly identified at the beginning of the debate, what it does make a difference to, however, is the House of introduction. We are all familiar with the pattern of a Session, where this House is short of business at the beginning of a Session and desperately busy at the end, while the House of Commons faces precisely the opposite problem. It has serious bunching of Bills queuing up for their Second Reading at the beginning of a Session, and comparatively little business, particularly for the Floor of the House, towards the end. The report argues that applying the Parliament Acts to Bills started in the Lords could provide a remedy to that situation by removing an artificial constraint on the distribution of Bills between the two Houses.
	The same motivation lies behind the proposal of the working group of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, that we should replace annual Sessions with a time limit for all Bills or, alternatively or additionally, allow automatic carry-over. I recognise that the discipline of the Session is something to which many, both within government and outside, attach importance, but the proposals from the group would not undermine that discipline. There would still be limits on the time available to process each individual Bill but, the report argues, the time of each House could be better used and the workload spread more evenly throughout the year if one of these approaches were adopted. I think we would all agree that that is a motive worth pursuing. As the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, pointed out, the commission on strengthening Parliament, which he chaired in 2000, made very similar recommendations. The precise solutions the report proposes may not turn out to be right, but the group's structures are plainly right, and the quality of the proposal at least deserves a response.
	The proposal that a Bill should be limited in the length of time it may remain before this House also needs serious consideration. It must be constructed to ensure that it cannot curtail either debate or scrutiny. But if its effect is to allow proper scrutiny and ensure that a Bill does not get lost because some Peers can put a Bill in jeopardy by endless debate, it will improve scrutiny and ensure that the respective parts of the Bill receive the appropriate level of attention. It should help the House in planning its own use of its time.

Lord Lucas: My Lords, could the noble and learned Lord give an example of when we have put a Bill in peril by talking too much?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, we had to agree to carry over the Constitutional Reform Bill. The Bill took 10 months to get out of this House and a great deal of time was spent on it.
	It is not just a question of the period of time imperilling a Bill; it is also the extent you ensure that each bit of the Bill receives proper scrutiny. How many people in the Chamber tonight have seen a bit of a Bill being debated in great detail in Committee or on Report before 6 o'clock and then watched people withdraw their amendments between 7.30 and 11.30 as the evening wears on and interest wanes? Is that proper scrutiny of each relevant part of a Bill?

Lord Roper: My Lords, if one looks over the past two years, the Bills which have gone beyond the so-called 60-day limit proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, have, on the whole, been those on which the Government have introduced a large number of amendments on Report or at later stages. It is not the fault of this House; it is merely that the Government have realised that Bills have had to be amended. Therefore, this artificial limit would reduce the quality of consideration.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the 60-day period is, in general cases, generous. We would need to consider, if this proposal went ahead—and I am simply saying that these proposals need to be discussed—whether there needs to be provision to extend the time, particularly in the circumstances that the noble Lord, Lord Roper, posits; namely, the Government bringing forward lots of amendments. It would plainly be totally unfair on the 59th day for a Government to produce great tranches of amendments. But if the proposal were to go forward, we would need to deal with that situation.
	The report also proposes considering the length of time that this House can delay proceedings under the Parliament Acts. We all agree that the power of this House to delay legislation and require the House of Commons to think again is a vital part of the parliamentary process. It ensures that the views expressed in this House have to be taken seriously and cannot simply be brushed aside. But that is not the same as accepting automatically that the precise arrangements which were thought appropriate 50 years ago are still appropriate now. I was interested to see that the leader of the QC party, the noble Lord, Lord Renton, supported the idea of modernising the Parliament Act. We do not want to curtail the ability to delay, but we need to make the process simpler, clearer and much more appropriate to today's arrangements.

Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords—

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, do you mind if I do not give way, because I only have one more minute?

Noble Lords: Order!

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Thank you, my Lords.
	The report also recommends that this House's powers over secondary legislation should be changed from one of veto to delay. Given the reception a similar proposal in the Government's 2001 White Paper on the reform of this House had, this is either a brave or a foolhardy recommendation by my noble friend. Predictably, most noble Lords who have contributed today have once again expressed their opposition to it. However, I think the report raises a valid criticism. An absolute veto seems inappropriate and inconsistent with the pre-eminence of the Commons and with this House's role as a revising Chamber. The use of secondary legislation has moved on very considerably since the Statutory Instruments Act 1946 and the Parliament Act were passed. Serious consideration needs to be given to arrangements relating to secondary legislation. We do not want a delaying power to become a perverse incentive to delay everything. But in the light of the way in which legislation is now drafted, we need to ask ourselves whether we become more effective as a revising House if there is the power to delay secondary legislation but not the ability to veto it. I am quite sure that the House has exercised very considerable restraint in the way in which it has dealt with secondary legislation because its only power has been to veto rather than to delay.
	I have concentrated my remarks on those aspects of the report that involve legislation to implement and where it would therefore be proper for the Government to have a view. The report itself goes much further than that. For example, it raises questions about the conventions under which we operate, how they could be dealt with under a non-legislative agreement approved by a resolution of the House. With such a process, it is much better for the Government not to have a view in relation to the way in which this House would run its affairs or pass particular resolutions in that regard.
	Paragraph 12 deals with self-regulation of the House. It is fair to say that the Government endorse the report's conclusion that all is not always for the best in the best of all possible worlds when it comes to how the House conducts its business, but I make it clear that it is a matter for the House and not for the Government to have a view about it. There is one aspect of the paragraph on which I would like to comment, however: the question of the Speaker of your Lordships' House. As the House knows, it is the Government's wish that the Lord Chancellor should no longer be the Speaker of your Lordships' House.
	If the Constitutional Reform Bill is enacted in the form in which it left this House, including Schedule 5, there will be no statutory barrier to separating the offices of the Lord Chancellor and the Speaker of the House. There remains, however, Standing Order 18, which states:
	"It is the duty of the Lord Chancellor ordinarily to attend the Lords House of Parliament as Speaker of the House".
	I am of course the servant of the House and, as I have said all along, I shall fulfil the House's requirements to the best of my ability. However, it is only fair to say that, given the Government's desires on the question of the Lord Chancellor, what the Lord Chancellor does is not compatible with his sitting on the Woolsack, and I hope that the House will very soon feel able to amend Standing Order 18 accordingly.
	I have gone on three minutes' too long, for which I apologise. I express gratitude to all who have taken part in this important and thoughtful debate. The number of speakers is an indication of the great interest that we in this House attach to our own affairs. The number of points that have been made have all been impressive. The Government have listened carefully to the points made on all sides. They, as well as the proposals in the report, will inform our further consideration of the proper powers and role of the House.
	I once again congratulate my noble friend Lord Hunt and his fellow members of the working group on bringing forward the issues in such a helpful and considered manner.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, it is late and I shall be very brief, particularly given the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, pointed out—and he has me bang to rights—that I went over my time in my introductory remarks.
	This has been a splendid debate. I am very grateful to all noble Lords and to my noble and learned friend for the spirit in which they took part, which has mostly been co-operative and constructive. I hope that we can take forward these discussions in the House together. There is much to discuss. For me, seven years' membership of your Lordships' House has been a wonderful privilege and I want to assure this House that I want the second Chamber to be effective in revising legislation and to have leverage over the House of Commons. This report is aimed at doing just that. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.
	House adjourned at twenty minutes past ten o'clock.